PDA

View Full Version : DD vs AFC Running Backs


trane
07-06-2006, 01:17 PM
In a previous thread, there was discussion of wheter Domanick Davis was "great" a RB. I thought that he was only a "good" RB and would never even make the Pro Bowl. However, after analyzing the collection of RB's in the AFC...it would not totally be unrealistic for DD to make the Pro Bowl. Providing he stays healthy and put ups good stats in the new system. Now that Edge James is in AZ, the undisputed best back in the AFC is LaDanian. After that, the debate can begin...who is the next best RB in the AFC?

Nawzer
07-06-2006, 01:21 PM
1. LT
2. Larry Johnson
3. Rudi Johnson
4. Domanick Davis
5. Fred Taylor (When healthy)

That's my top 5. I think with an injury free season DD can certainly become an elite back. But till then he's just a good back.

real
07-06-2006, 01:23 PM
#2: Larry Johnson

DD #4 ???

What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...

the wonger need food
07-06-2006, 01:27 PM
LaDainian and L. Johnson are top tier. After that the second tier would probably include Domanick, Rudi Johnson, Willie Parker, Curtis Martin, maybe Tatum Bell. There's a big dropoff after the top two guys.

You're right though, Domanick definitely has a shot at the Pro Bowl this year if he can stay healthy.

DocBar
07-06-2006, 01:43 PM
I would think McGahee would make the list. He showed some flashes last year and is recovering nicely from his knee injury. As was said earlier, there isn't a ton of talent in the AFC at RB. I think DD can be in the upper eschalon if he can stay healthy or learn to play through an injury. Pro Bowl is definitely there for him.

Nawzer
07-06-2006, 01:55 PM
#2: Larry Johnson

DD #4 ???

What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...

Jamal Lewis had a bad year compared to his standards and Mike Anderson had a good year last year with the Broncos but who doesn't? McGahee is in the same boat as DD I think. When healthy they can be devastating.

real
07-06-2006, 02:01 PM
Jamal Lewis had a bad year compared to his standards and Mike Anderson had a good year last year with the Broncos but who doesn't? McGahee is in the same boat as DD I think. When healthy they can be devastating.

IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...

DocBar
07-06-2006, 02:11 PM
IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...
I'm not sure how you "rate" talent w/o looking at stats. I'm not being a smart*ss, but I just don't get it. Do you look at times in the 40? How they do in practice? The team around them? Are you judging the ability to see the field and change direction on a dime or break an arm tackle? I just don't see how you can judge talent without stats weighing heavily in the equation. Maybe this makes me stupid. Like I said, I'm asking because I want to know. I'm not trash talking.

thunderkyss
07-06-2006, 02:28 PM
IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...


and this is why people like you may(I said may) rate Michael Bennet as a better runningback than DD..... true, he may have more speed..... breakaway speed, which DD flat out does not have........ but I'd start DD over Bennett any day.

But I have no doubt that DD can find himself in the ProBowl, if Kubiak can get our offensive line to do for him, what the Bronco offensive line has done for Portis, Anderson, Gary, TD, Droughns, etc.... none whatsoever.

trane
07-06-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm not sure how you "rate" talent w/o looking at stats. I'm not being a smart*ss, but I just don't get it. Do you look at times in the 40? How they do in practice? The team around them? Are you judging the ability to see the field and change direction on a dime or break an arm tackle? I just don't see how you can judge talent without stats weighing heavily in the equation. Maybe this makes me stupid. Like I said, I'm asking because I want to know. I'm not trash talking.

I think stats are a starting point but they don't tell the whole story. For example, if it takes a back 30 carries to get a hundred yards...I'm not impressed. Then you have some backs may not rush for a lot of yards but may have a lot of receiving yards which is effective also. IMO, a good back is measured best by how many plays they make when the ball is in their hands.

HOU-TEX
07-06-2006, 02:34 PM
I would think McGahee would make the list. He showed some flashes last year and is recovering nicely from his knee injury. As was said earlier, there isn't a ton of talent in the AFC at RB. I think DD can be in the upper eschalon if he can stay healthy or learn to play through an injury. Pro Bowl is definitely there for him.

From what I've seen so far this offseason, I just don't see it happening. I mean if his knee really did swell up during run throughs, then I don't see how he's going to be ready for TC., pre-season, maybe even the opener. Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't he need to build the strength back in his knee?

TexansTrueFan
07-06-2006, 02:46 PM
D.D overall is a top 10 back in my opinion, as far as talent goes. i mean think of the godly numbers he woulda put up IF not for injuries, and look at the line he has ran behind. If he was with the colts like james last year, he woulds prolly had less injuries and way better numbers. You think manning would be as good behind the texans O-Line, no and only reason carr is descent behind it is cause he is a very mobile QB. If we have a "OK" line this year i see Davis having a pro bowl year. I mean obviously the Front office sees something most of you dont, cause they did pass on Bush.

real
07-06-2006, 02:55 PM
and this is why people like you may(I said may) rate Michael Bennet as a better runningback than DD..... true, he may have more speed..... breakaway speed, which DD flat out does not have........ but I'd start DD over Bennett any day.

But I have no doubt that DD can find himself in the ProBowl, if Kubiak can get our offensive line to do for him, what the Bronco offensive line has done for Portis, Anderson, Gary, TD, Droughns, etc.... none whatsoever.

Hmmm...thats an interesting debate...one perhaps the only solution can be to agree to disagree...but lets not bring bennet into the discussion because it is widely known that he isn't a great, dominant or game changing back...He is mediocre...If you are trying to put DD in the ranks of the better backs in the leauge then we should use them as examples to compare him to...And IMO, I would rather start Bennett because he has big play ability + he can do what DD can do....but faster.....But anywho...the fact that there would even be a debate between DD and Bennett should be point enough to show what level DD is on...There wouldn't be a debate with some of the better backs in the leauge....

real
07-06-2006, 02:57 PM
D.D overall is a top 10 back in my opinion, as far as talent goes. i mean think of the godly numbers he woulda put up IF not for injuries, and look at the line he has ran behind. If he was with the colts like james last year, he woulds prolly had less injuries and way better numbers. You think manning would be as good behind the texans O-Line, no and only reason carr is descent behind it is cause he is a very mobile QB. If we have a "OK" line this year i see Davis having a pro bowl year. I mean obviously the Front office sees something most of you dont, cause they did pass on Bush.

Totally respect your opinion..but disagree with every point you made...:twocents:
Question: Do you think that because our line was a bad PASS blocking line that automatically makes us poor RUN blockers? Our run blocking has never been a problem...

DocBar
07-06-2006, 02:57 PM
I think stats are a starting point but they don't tell the whole story. For example, if it takes a back 30 carries to get a hundred yards...I'm not impressed. Then you have some backs may not rush for a lot of yards but may have a lot of receiving yards which is effective also. IMO, a good back is measured best by how many plays they make when the ball is in their hands.
Isn't all that reflected in stats? Obviously, 100yds on 20 carries is much better than on 30. And receptions is also a trackable stat to reflect the talent of the back. Maybe the talent thing is a reflection of how much a back does per touch rather than just looking at over-all stats. IE Barry Sanders Vs. Emmitt Smith.
Barry Sanders:


Year Team Rushing Receiving
G No. Yds. Avg. TD No. Yds. Avg. TD F
1989 Detroit 15 280 1470 5.3 14 24 282 11.8 0 10
1990 Detroit 16 255 1304 5.1 13 36 480 13.3 3 4
1991 Detroit 15 342 1548 4.5 16 41 307 7.5 1 5
1992 Detroit 16 312 1352 4.3 9 29 225 7.8 1 6
1993 Detroit 11 243 1115 4.6 3 36 205 5.7 0 3
1994 Detroit 16 331 1883 5.7 7 44 283 6.4 1 0
1995 Detroit 16 314 1500 4.8 11 48 398 8.3 1 3
1996 Detroit 16 307 1553 5.1 11 24 147 6.1 0 4
1997 Detroit 16 335 2053 6.1 11 33 305 9.2 3 3
1998 Detroit 16 343 1491 4.3 4 37 289 7.8 0 3
Career Total 153 3062 15,269 5.0 99 352 2921 8.3 10 41
Additional Career Statistics: Passing: 4-1-11, 1 INT; Kickoff Returns: 5-118
Emmitt Smith:
Year Team G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 241 937 3.9 48 11 4 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 365 1563 4.3 75 12 7 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 373 1713 4.6 68 18 10 91
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 283 1486 5.3 62 9 11 74
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 368 1484 4.0 46 21 7 101
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 377 1773 4.7 60 25 10 107
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 327 1204 3.7 42 12 3 75
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 261 1074 4.1 44 4 5 47
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 319 1332 4.2 32 13 8 89
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 329 1397 4.2 63 11 10 85
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 294 1203 4.1 52 9 6 65
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 261 1021 3.9 44 3 7 47
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 254 975 3.8 30 5 5 48
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 90 256 2.8 22 2 1 15
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 267 937 3.5 29 9 4 41
TOTAL 226 219 4409 18355 4.2 75 164 98 885
Recieving: G GS Rec Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 24 228 9.5 57 0 3 2 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 49 258 5.3 14 1 0 0 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 59 335 5.7 26 1 3 0 12
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 57 414 7.3 86 1 2 1 13
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 50 341 6.8 68 1 3 1 12
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 62 375 6.0 40 0 2 1 14
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 47 249 5.3 21 3 1 0 12
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 40 234 5.9 24 0 2 0 6
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 27 175 6.5 24 2 1 0 8
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 27 119 4.4 14 2 0 0 4
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 11 79 7.2 19 0 0 0 2
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 17 116 6.8 22 0 1 0 6
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 16 89 5.6 17 0 0 0 4
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 14 107 7.6 36 0 1 0 4
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 15 105 7.0 18 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 226 219 515 3224 6.3 86 11 19 5 100




Who would you consider the more talented back?

real
07-06-2006, 03:03 PM
Isn't all that reflected in stats? Obviously, 100yds on 20 carries is much better than on 30. And receptions is also a trackable stat to reflect the talent of the back. Maybe the talent thing is a reflection of how much a back does per touch rather than just looking at over-all stats. IE Barry Sanders Vs. Emmitt Smith.
Barry Sanders:


Year Team Rushing Receiving
G No. Yds. Avg. TD No. Yds. Avg. TD F
1989 Detroit 15 280 1470 5.3 14 24 282 11.8 0 10
1990 Detroit 16 255 1304 5.1 13 36 480 13.3 3 4
1991 Detroit 15 342 1548 4.5 16 41 307 7.5 1 5
1992 Detroit 16 312 1352 4.3 9 29 225 7.8 1 6
1993 Detroit 11 243 1115 4.6 3 36 205 5.7 0 3
1994 Detroit 16 331 1883 5.7 7 44 283 6.4 1 0
1995 Detroit 16 314 1500 4.8 11 48 398 8.3 1 3
1996 Detroit 16 307 1553 5.1 11 24 147 6.1 0 4
1997 Detroit 16 335 2053 6.1 11 33 305 9.2 3 3
1998 Detroit 16 343 1491 4.3 4 37 289 7.8 0 3
Career Total 153 3062 15,269 5.0 99 352 2921 8.3 10 41
Additional Career Statistics: Passing: 4-1-11, 1 INT; Kickoff Returns: 5-118
Emmitt Smith:
Year Team G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 241 937 3.9 48 11 4 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 365 1563 4.3 75 12 7 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 373 1713 4.6 68 18 10 91
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 283 1486 5.3 62 9 11 74
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 368 1484 4.0 46 21 7 101
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 377 1773 4.7 60 25 10 107
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 327 1204 3.7 42 12 3 75
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 261 1074 4.1 44 4 5 47
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 319 1332 4.2 32 13 8 89
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 329 1397 4.2 63 11 10 85
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 294 1203 4.1 52 9 6 65
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 261 1021 3.9 44 3 7 47
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 254 975 3.8 30 5 5 48
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 90 256 2.8 22 2 1 15
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 267 937 3.5 29 9 4 41
TOTAL 226 219 4409 18355 4.2 75 164 98 885
Recieving: G GS Rec Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 24 228 9.5 57 0 3 2 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 49 258 5.3 14 1 0 0 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 59 335 5.7 26 1 3 0 12
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 57 414 7.3 86 1 2 1 13
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 50 341 6.8 68 1 3 1 12
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 62 375 6.0 40 0 2 1 14
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 47 249 5.3 21 3 1 0 12
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 40 234 5.9 24 0 2 0 6
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 27 175 6.5 24 2 1 0 8
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 27 119 4.4 14 2 0 0 4
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 11 79 7.2 19 0 0 0 2
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 17 116 6.8 22 0 1 0 6
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 16 89 5.6 17 0 0 0 4
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 14 107 7.6 36 0 1 0 4
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 15 105 7.0 18 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 226 219 515 3224 6.3 86 11 19 5 100




Who would you consider the more talented back?

Huh ??? Talent is something that is judged on an individual basis...Analyzing stats means nothing...here is why (1) Two players who's stats are being compared aren't in identical situations(2)Not being played in the same game(3) not facing the same opponents(4) Not running the same offense....How on god's green earth can you look at a piece of paper with numbers on it, and judge who is more talented???

hollywood_texan
07-06-2006, 03:07 PM
The Houston Texans are 14-34 since drafting Davis. He has played very well with an enemic offense. 2004 was a decent year, but they started off very slow and ended with a thud. In addition, the defense hasn't really provided a lot of help either over the years, in spurts from time to time but nothing significant.

Taking that into consideration and Davis' past performance, his production and value could have been a lot more valuable on a team that was more successful.

The guys Davis is being compared to are on teams that are more competitive.

real
07-06-2006, 03:10 PM
The Houston Texans are 14-34 since drafting Davis. He has played very well with an enemic offense. 2004 was a decent year, but they started off very slow and ended with a thud. In addition, the defense hasn't really provided a lot of help either over the years, in spurts from time to time but nothing significant.

Taking that into consideration and Davis' past performance, his production and value could have been a lot more valuable on a team that was more successful.

The guys Davis is being compared to are on teams that are more competitive.
:hunter:

eltoro
07-06-2006, 03:19 PM
This debate is moot until DD can prove his ability to stay healthy for an entire season (or close to an entire season)...

HOU-TEX
07-06-2006, 03:22 PM
This debate is moot until DD can prove his ability to stay healthy for an entire season (or close to an entire season)...

Thank you, somebody else agrees.:yahoo:

hollywood_texan
07-06-2006, 03:26 PM
This debate is moot until DD can prove his ability to stay healthy for an entire season (or close to an entire season)...

The same can be said about another player on offesne with regard to his performance.

I am just amazed the slack one guy gets and other guys are hammered.

Life isn't fair, so I'll just leave it alone.

real
07-06-2006, 03:29 PM
The same can be said about another player on offesne with regard to his performance.

I am just amazed the slack one guy gets and other guys are hammered.

Life isn't fair, so I'll just leave it alone.

Well anytime you want to hear some good hammering pull up a chair....Because honestly DD has been our most productive offensive player....but....BUT...Thats more a knock on the rest of those slackers than it is a positive for DD...

HOU-TEX
07-06-2006, 03:40 PM
Well anytime you want to hear some good hammering pull up a chair....Because honestly DD has been our most productive offensive player....but....BUT...Thats more a knock on the rest of those slackers than it is a positive for DD...

Hence the reason he's hurt most of the time. I hope he's 100% at the beginning of the season.:brickwall

DocBar
07-06-2006, 03:42 PM
Huh ??? Talent is something that is judged on an individual basis...Analyzing stats means nothing...here is why (1) Two players who's stats are being compared aren't in identical situations(2)Not being played in the same game(3) not facing the same opponents(4) Not running the same offense....How on god's green earth can you look at a piece of paper with numbers on it, and judge who is more talented???
what do you mean by rating talent on an individual basis? You must compare apples to apples or, in this case, RB's to RB's. How are you going to do that without using stats as some sort of reference point? All I'm asking is that, minus stats, what are the citeria being used to judge the level of talent of a particular player? Stats are, to me at least, a quantifiable resourse to indicate a players given proficiency at a particular position. They don't have to be against the same opponent or in the same game. You DO, IMO, have to rate the quality of the teams being played against. Are they good run stoppers? Do they have a good secondary, etc... And also rate the quality of the team the individual is on. David Carr might be the next Montana with Indy's line and scheme. Impossible to tell. Could ANY RB succeed last year in Arizona? I'm not saying stats tell the whole story by any means. All I'm saying is that you have to use them to make a credible decision on a players talent level. I also think that there are a lot of variables that make rating an individual player almost impossible. Schemes, surrounding talent, etc...
Anyways, I'm running on and on so I'll stop for now and see if anyone can make sense of all this stuff I just typed.

real
07-06-2006, 03:49 PM
what do you mean by rating talent on an individual basis? You must compare apples to apples or, in this case, RB's to RB's. How are you going to do that without using stats as some sort of reference point? All I'm asking is that, minus stats, what are the citeria being used to judge the level of talent of a particular player? Stats are, to me at least, a quantifiable resourse to indicate a players given proficiency at a particular position. They don't have to be against the same opponent or in the same game. You DO, IMO, have to rate the quality of the teams being played against. Are they good run stoppers? Do they have a good secondary, etc... And also rate the quality of the team the individual is on. David Carr might be the next Montana with Indy's line and scheme. Impossible to tell. Could ANY RB succeed last year in Arizona? I'm not saying stats tell the whole story by any means. All I'm saying is that you have to use them to make a credible decision on a players talent level. I also think that there are a lot of variables that make rating an individual player almost impossible. Schemes, surrounding talent, etc...Anyways, I'm running on and on so I'll stop for now and see if anyone can make sense of all this stuff I just typed.

I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is...All stats can PROVE is who was more productive...People are forever going to argue talent, and who was better because people will have different opinions on that...I'm just saying don't throw stats at me to prove why someone is better...That person may have been more productive, but that doesn't make them more talented...IMO, there are some people who are more TALENTED, but never get a chance to put up any stats....Point: Stats don't prove talent

MorKnolle
07-06-2006, 04:05 PM
Top AFC RBs:
1) LaDanian Tomlinson - best overall RB in the NFL
2) Larry Johnson - possibly a better pure runner than LT, 2nd best overall in AFC
-------big drop off---------
3) Willis McGahee - better pure runner than anyone else on the list, is playing in a relatively crappy situation in Buffalo.
4) Rudi Johnson - better pure runner than Davis, probably less versatile
5) Domanick Davis - versatile RB but has injury problems

Honorable Mention:
Willie Parker
LaMont Jordan
Jamal Lewis

trane
07-06-2006, 04:24 PM
Who would you consider the more talented back?[/QUOTE]

Both Emmitt and Barry are elite backs. Comparing the two is like comparing a sports car to a truck. It just a matter of preference.

DocBar
07-06-2006, 04:29 PM
Who would you consider the more talented back?

{QUOTE}Both Emmitt and Barry are elite backs. Comparing the two is like comparing a sports car to a truck. It just a matter of preference.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of the point I was getting at. It's all about personal preference when judging something as intangible as talent level.

thunderkyss
07-06-2006, 05:47 PM
There wouldn't be a debate with some of the better backs in the leauge....

year three of Tiki Barber's career, and there would be no question of your mind that you would start Tiki over Bennette?? yeah right.......

The thing is that DD hasn't had the chance to have a break out year yet. You think Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rothlisberger would do just as bad as Carr behind our line, but you think Tiki Barber, LT, Shaun Alexander and Jamal Lewis would be going to the probowl behind the same line.



Totally respect your opinion..but disagree with every point you made...:twocents:
Question: Do you think that because our line was a bad PASS blocking line that automatically makes us poor RUN blockers? Our run blocking has never been a problem...

You only say that, because DD has averages 1000 yards a season...... in this case, it's the back, and not the line.

Barry Sanders Vs. Emmitt Smith.

Who would you consider the more talented back?

Without a doubt, Barry Sanders is more talented, and more athletic(sp), but Emmit was the better back....... that's the way I see it.

Thank you, somebody else agrees.:yahoo:

Put him on a better team, and he'll stay healthy..... keep those DLinemen off of him, have other real options to move the ball down field, and stop running him on every first and second down.

Wolf
07-06-2006, 05:54 PM
if you put emmitt in Detroit and had Barry in cowboy land..

please..Barry would have easily had 20,000 yards (in 14years) Emmitt had 18,200+ or to that effect

Barry was IT for Detroit

.....
As far as the best RB I saw in my generation Bo Jackson.. power and Speed, just too bad his career was cut short.

Earl is #1b in my book

DocBar
07-06-2006, 05:59 PM
[QUOTE]Without a doubt, Barry Sanders is more talented, and more athletic(sp), but Emmit was the better back....... that's the way I see it.[QUOTE]
Very interesting. I happen to agree, but how did you reach that conclusion?

Wolf
07-06-2006, 06:00 PM
[QUOTE]Without a doubt, Barry Sanders is more talented, and more athletic(sp), but Emmit was the better back....... that's the way I see it.[QUOTE]
Very interesting. I happen to agree, but how did you reach that conclusion?

itis called flozell adams,larry brown, mark stepnoski,etc,etc :heh:

DocBar
07-06-2006, 06:12 PM
if you put emmitt in Detroit and had Barry in cowboy land..

please..Barry would have easily had 20,000 yards (in 14years) Emmitt had 18,200+ or to that effect

Barry was IT for Detroit

.....
As far as the best RB I saw in my generation Bo Jackson.. power and Speed, just too bad his career was cut short.

Earl is #1b in my book
I think you're cutting Sanders short if he played behind Emmitt's line. He had 15,000+ in 10 seasons at Detroit. Sux about Jackson. He was a joy to watch.
Campbell is in my top 2 backs. I go back and forth with Jim Brown. That man was a monster if ever there was one.

MorKnolle
07-06-2006, 06:14 PM
Barry Sanders is (was) a better RB than Emmitt Smith, I would venture to say Barry was the best RB in the history of the NFL. Emmitt's longevity and the fact he played for a vastly superior team led to his superior career stats, but Barry was easily a better runner. He had at least 1100 yards each of his 10 seasons, and he averaged 1530 rushing yards per year (99.8 yards per game) and 5.0 yards per carry over his career, and made the Pro Bowl all 10 seasons of his career (2 more than Emmitt made in 15 seasons) with a pretty bad team surrounding him. Walter Payton is a relatively close 2nd best RB ever, with others like Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, and some others pretty close behind. Bo Jackson could have turned into something special had he stayed healthy and been a full-time football player, he was definitely one of the more exciting players ever.

DocBar
07-06-2006, 06:19 PM
Barry Sanders is (was) a better RB than Emmitt Smith, I would venture to say Barry was the best RB in the history of the NFL. Emmitt's longevity and the fact he played for a vastly superior team led to his superior career stats, but Barry was easily a better runner. He had at least 1100 yards each of his 10 seasons, and he averaged 1530 rushing yards per year (99.8 yards per game) and 5.0 yards per carry over his career, and made the Pro Bowl all 10 seasons of his career (2 more than Emmitt made in 15 seasons) with a pretty bad team surrounding him. Walter Payton is a relatively close 2nd best RB ever, with others like Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, and some others pretty close behind. Bo Jackson could have turned into something special had he stayed healthy and been a full-time football player, he was definitely one of the more exciting players ever.
Dude...You left out Campbell. You can't leave out EARL!!!! Heresy I say! Heresy! Other than that MINOR omission, good post.
:)

thunderkyss
07-06-2006, 06:20 PM
I think you're cutting Sanders short if he played behind Emmitt's line. He had 15,000+ in 10 seasons at Detroit. Sux about Jackson. He was a joy to watch.
Campbell is in my top 2 backs. I go back and forth with Jim Brown. That man was a monster if ever there was one.

If this were true, then Dallas would've been trading running backs the way Denver has....... but they weren't.... anybody remember a ridiculous trade involving any of Emmitts back-ups?? I don't. The line makes the back, that's true, but many times, the back makes the line. No doubt Jimmy Johnson did his homework, and put the right people in the right places to be the best they can be.

& While sticking Emmitt in Detroit might have reduced Emmitts stats, I don't think it would've changed the W-L much at all.

Texans86
07-06-2006, 06:21 PM
Is everyone forgetting Shaun Alexander in their top backs equation. He only lead the league last year, and came in second by 1 yard two years ago. He is quietly one of the best backs in the league. I think DD is a quality player, who is above average, but not elite. If he were slightly faster, that breakaway speed, he would be in that category. I have to agree with everyone else though, that after LT and L.Johnson, there's a large dropoff in talent.

Wolf
07-06-2006, 06:28 PM
If this were true, then Dallas would've been trading running backs the way Denver has....... but they weren't.... anybody remember a ridiculous trade involving any of Emmitts back-ups?? I don't. The line makes the back, that's true, but many times, the back makes the line. No doubt Jimmy Johnson did his homework, and put the right people in the right places to be the best they can be.

& While sticking Emmitt in Detroit might have reduced Emmitts stats, I don't think it would've changed the W-L much at all.

emmitt stayed injury free and they didn't do a RBBC
49 rushes by richards in 92
74 rushed by lassic in 93
60+ rushes by coleman in 94

only guy they drafted high is sherman williams averaged about 1/2 yard less than emmitt, yet he only got 48 rushes in 95



these guys got a play here or there on in garbage time .. and yes you can nitpick that Emmitt averaged more yards per carry than those guys

Wolf
07-06-2006, 06:32 PM
just glancing a denvers..

After T.D.. they had burroughs carrying the load on those years but the other 2 backs got between 60-80 carries

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/denindex.htm

thunderkyss
07-06-2006, 11:05 PM
just glancing a denvers..

After T.D.. they had burroughs carrying the load on those years but the other 2 backs got between 60-80 carries

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/denindex.htm

regardless of the health of the starter. Denver is a runningback producing machine.

If it was all about the line, then Dallas wouldn't have been paying Emmitt like they did. He'd be as expendable, as a #2 reciever........ a valuable commodity, but not something the team cannot do without.

texan279
07-06-2006, 11:53 PM
Call me crazy, but I would take Larry Johnson, LT, Rudi Johnson, Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin, Jamal Lewis, and maybe one or two others over DD...

MorKnolle
07-07-2006, 02:03 AM
Is everyone forgetting Shaun Alexander in their top backs equation. He only lead the league last year, and came in second by 1 yard two years ago. He is quietly one of the best backs in the league. I think DD is a quality player, who is above average, but not elite. If he were slightly faster, that breakaway speed, he would be in that category. I have to agree with everyone else though, that after LT and L.Johnson, there's a large dropoff in talent.

The title of the thread said "DD vs. AFC Running Backs", Shaun Alexander (and Tiki Barber) are in the NFC so I didn't include them in my list, but they certainly would be in the top 5 in the league, and others in the NFC would probably be even with or ahead of DD.

thunderkyss
07-07-2006, 08:39 AM
.......but they certainly would be in the top 5 in the league, and others in the NFC would probably be even with or ahead of DD.

You don't know how much it hurts to hear you say this......

jagibelieve
07-07-2006, 09:24 AM
1. LT
2. Larry Johnson
3. Rudi Johnson
4. Domanick Davis
5. Fred Taylor (When healthy)

That's my top 5. I think with an injury free season DD can certainly become an elite back. But till then he's just a good back.
Not a bad list. I'm not sure I would rank Domanick Davis that high, but he is a good back, easily in the top 10. You are also very much right about Fred Taylor, when healthy. Most teams still must account for him when he's in the backfield, however, how much longer can he be productive?

real
07-07-2006, 09:55 AM
Call me crazy, but I would take Larry Johnson, LT, Rudi Johnson, Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin, Jamal Lewis, and maybe one or two others over DD...

Im with you...I think that major homerism is the prime suspect when DD ranks within your top five backs in the leauge...DD puts up some pretty good numbers but he's not overly talented....he's ok....

DocBar
07-07-2006, 10:02 AM
Im with you...I think that major homerism is the prime suspect when DD ranks within your top five backs in the leauge...DD puts up some pretty good numbers but he's not overly talented....he's ok....
DD came within 24 or so yards of being one of VERY FEW backs to have 3 1,000 yd seasons and that was with missing significant time. I'm not a huge fan of the 1,000 yd mark, but the fact that few other backs have done it must mean something. IMO, 1,500 would be a better barometer of greatness in a 16 game season.

HOU-TEX
07-07-2006, 10:17 AM
Im with you...I think that major homerism is the prime suspect when DD ranks within your top five backs in the leauge...DD puts up some pretty good numbers but he's not overly talented....he's ok....

All this talk about DD and we don't even know if he'll be starting the season opener due to health. It doesn't matter because we're going to have 2 backs running the ball this year combining for 2000 yds.:superman: :homer:

real
07-07-2006, 10:23 AM
DD came within 24 or so yards of being one of VERY FEW backs to have 3 1,000 yd seasons and that was with missing significant time. I'm not a huge fan of the 1,000 yd mark, but the fact that few other backs have done it must mean something. IMO, 1,500 would be a better barometer of greatness in a 16 game season.

Look my point is...IMO, DD=Average...in the NFL IMO, 1000yds=Average...Im not sure why only a few RB's have 3 consecutive 1000 yard seasons, but Im willing to speculate that it has nothing to do with the talent of the player...IMO, it probably just has to do with stability within the team, and staying relatively injury free...Like I have mentioned,IMO, stats mean nothing when evaluating talent...There are some players who's stats weren't as good as DD's last year, but I would still take them in a heart beat over him...i.e..Tatum Bell,Ronnie Brown, Jamal Lewis,...just to name a few

TheCD
07-07-2006, 10:27 AM
{QUOTE}Both Emmitt and Barry are elite backs. Comparing the two is like comparing a sports car to a truck. It just a matter of preference.



I agree. Sanders doesn't hold the all-time rushing record (regardless of whether he could have) and Emmitt wasn't as fluid a back. They're both great backs, but Emmitt never intentionally ran backwards for a great deal of lost yardage either.


I'm going to wait another year before I put Larry Johnson and Willie Parker in the top of the AFC. They played good for less than a season so far...but for all we know it could have been an anomaly. I'm sure that Johnson will be a definite #2 here next year. But there's just no way he's an all-round better player than L.T. He may garner more yards...but I doubt he'll ever throw for 4 TD's and a 153.3 Passer Rating like L.T.

DocBar
07-07-2006, 10:37 AM
Stats are like scores: If they didn't matter, nobody would keep them.

real
07-07-2006, 10:40 AM
Stats are like scores: If they didn't matter, nobody would keep them.

Stats are like Scores...Meaning the more talented team may not always win...like the more talented player may not have the better stats...thanks for that analysis...:homer:

DocBar
07-07-2006, 11:01 AM
Stats are like Scores...Meaning the more talented team may not always win...like the more talented player may not have the better stats...thanks for that analysis...:homer:
I still haven't seen a reasonable definition of "talent" or how it is meted out in reference to a particular player or position. Can anyone please tell me why L.T. is a more"talented" back than DD? Is it just "common knowledge"? Tell me something more quantifiable than just "he's more talented". Explain the position you hold and why, with provable examples. Not trying to be a jackass, it just seems like a bandwagon kind of thing and everybody is more or less stating the same thing with no objective reasons.

real
07-07-2006, 11:07 AM
I still haven't seen a reasonable definition of "talent" or how it is meted out in reference to a particular player or position. Can anyone please tell me why L.T. is a more"talented" back than DD? Is it just "common knowledge"? Tell me something more quantifiable than just "he's more talented". Explain the position you hold and why, with provable examples. Not trying to be a jackass, it just seems like a bandwagon kind of thing and everybody is more or less stating the same thing with no objective reasons.

IMO, Talent is something judged on an individual basis...Example: Some people think the rolling stones are talented...I do not.....I guess its just a matter of opinion...And I am not going to be so redundant as to put why LT is more Talented than DD...Do you think That DD is more Talented than LT? If you do I think you should be the one to explain....:pigfly:

DocBar
07-07-2006, 11:29 AM
IMO, Talent is something judged on an individual basis...Example: Some people think the rolling stones are talented...I do not.....I guess its just a matter of opinion...And I am not going to be so redundant as to put why LT is more Talented than DD...Do you think That DD is more Talented than LT? If you do I think you should be the one to explain....:pigfly:
Thank you for proving my point. Talent on a football field is ambiguos at best. ALL of the players have talent. A lot of the results of a certain player come from schemes and coaching systms, as well as individual performances.
I believe that DD IS an upper echelon(NOT saying great) player. He has made some awesome plays on a horrible team and put up the numbers to back it up. LT is an awesome player, and I feel more talented than DD because he was putting up even better numbers than DD on a team that was just as bad for a couple of years. LT did this on a team that ran and ran and ran. LT has AVERAGED 340 carries a season. DD has only hit 300(302) ONCE. LT is, hands down, a more talented back because he is the centerpoint of the Chargers offense and is rarely shut down. News Flash!!! I just checked his STATS and he had a 100 reception year in 2003. THAT is impressive. Especially when you look at his 1,645 yds rushing. How can you possibly judge a players performance without looking at his numbers? It shoulodn't be the end-all-be-all of rating a player, but it HAS to play a role in it. YAC and yards after initial contact are some telling stats on a players level of ability.

:lightbulb:

Vambo, the Marble Eye
07-07-2006, 11:51 AM
All this talk about DD and we don't even know if he'll be starting the season opener due to health. It doesn't matter because we're going to have 2 backs running the ball this year combining for 2000 yds.:superman: :homer:

I guess I have to agree with this line of thought... I don't really care where DD ranks as much as I care whether the Texans have a running game that can pose a legitimate threat to give us some game breakers... even if it means some "long ball" to AJ and Moulds.

DD is good enough... I hope he rushes for a combined 1600 yrs... IF HE IS HEALTHY he would go a long way toward helping the Texans get out of the cellar in terms of producing points.

HOU-TEX
07-07-2006, 12:01 PM
I guess I have to agree with this line of thought... I don't really care where DD ranks as much as I care whether the Texans have a running game that can pose a legitimate threat to give us some game breakers... even if it means some "long ball" to AJ and Moulds.

DD is good enough... I hope he rushes for a combined 1600 yrs... IF HE IS HEALTHY he would go a long way toward helping the Texans get out of the cellar in terms of producing points.

Hey, I'm counting on quite a few of these.:redtowel:

DocBar
07-07-2006, 12:04 PM
Hey, I'm counting on quite a few of these.:redtowel:
I hope DD gets 1,600 rushing yds too, but how do they get combined? Do you mean receiving AND rushing? Maybe I misread. I do that sometimes.

real
07-07-2006, 12:07 PM
Thank you for proving my point. Talent on a football field is ambiguos at best. ALL of the players have talent. A lot of the results of a certain player come from schemes and coaching systms, as well as individual performances.
I believe that DD IS an upper echelon(NOT saying great) player. He has made some awesome plays on a horrible team and put up the numbers to back it up. LT is an awesome player, and I feel more talented than DD because he was putting up even better numbers than DD on a team that was just as bad for a couple of years. LT did this on a team that ran and ran and ran. LT has AVERAGED 340 carries a season. DD has only hit 300(302) ONCE. LT is, hands down, a more talented back because he is the centerpoint of the Chargers offense and is rarely shut down. News Flash!!! I just checked his STATS and he had a 100 reception year in 2003. THAT is impressive. Especially when you look at his 1,645 yds rushing. How can you possibly judge a players performance without looking at his numbers? It shoulodn't be the end-all-be-all of rating a player, but it HAS to play a role in it. YAC and yards after initial contact are some telling stats on a players level of ability.
:lightbulb:

I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...:superman:

DocBar
07-07-2006, 12:15 PM
I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...:superman:
That was a good answer. I feel the same way about the talent arguments. Stats only take you so far in judging talent, but they can't be totally ignored. I was really just playing devils advocate and being a little argumentive. I try to base my opinions on stats, quality of team/opponents, scheme and surrounding talent. Obviously, a more talented OL will usually lead to better stats for a RB. Anyway, nice posts.

Vambo, the Marble Eye
07-07-2006, 04:31 PM
I hope DD gets 1,600 rushing yds too, but how do they get combined? Do you mean receiving AND rushing? Maybe I misread. I do that sometimes.

misread? nope. My fault... by combined.... I meant something like 1200 rushing and 400 receiving would be just about right.

DocBar
07-07-2006, 04:37 PM
misread? nope. My fault... by combined.... I meant something like 1200 rushing and 400 receiving would be just about right.
Sounds like a wiener to me!!! And no you will NOT be my huckleberry. Huckleberries suck.

HOU-TEX
07-07-2006, 04:40 PM
Sounds like a wiener to me!!! And no you will NOT be my huckleberry. Huckleberries suck.

A wiener, did someone say wiener? Who's the wiener?:confused:

bayoudreamn
07-07-2006, 07:02 PM
I think stats are a starting point but they don't tell the whole story. For example, if it takes a back 30 carries to get a hundred yards...I'm not impressed. Then you have some backs may not rush for a lot of yards but may have a lot of receiving yards which is effective also. IMO, a good back is measured best by how many plays they make when the ball is in their hands.

I think EJ is a perfect case for comparison to indicate how stats and other considerations have to be looked at together and in perspective. Statistically speaking, Indy may not miss James this year. The question is whether or not those who replace him can help in all the ways he helped that don't show up in statistics.

bayoudreamn
07-07-2006, 07:08 PM
I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is...All stats can PROVE is who was more productive...People are forever going to argue talent, and who was better because people will have different opinions on that...I'm just saying don't throw stats at me to prove why someone is better...That person may have been more productive, but that doesn't make them more talented...IMO, there are some people who are more TALENTED, but never get a chance to put up any stats....Point: Stats don't prove talent

Good point. I agree. That's why we need to leave the whole Texans team alone and be nice to all the millionaires until the season starts....then we can beat 'em up.

thunderkyss
07-08-2006, 02:39 PM
I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...:superman:


by definition, a bust is a talented individual who has not produced....... give me the guy with less talent, and more production anyday.

misread? nope. My fault... by combined.... I meant something like 1200 rushing and 400 receiving would be just about right.

DD did that in 2004........ with the same crap coaching, and same offensive line that has been less than beneficial to our team. With Kubiak, Sherman, and crew(including an improved David Carr) look for DD to produce a combined 2000 yards.

DocBar
07-08-2006, 02:44 PM
by definition, a bust is a talented individual who has not produced....... give me the guy with less talent, and more production anyday.



DD did that in 2004........ with the same crap coaching, and same offensive line that has been less than beneficial to our team. With Kubiak, Sherman, and crew(including an improved David Carr) look for DD to produce a combined 2000 yards.
HALLELLUJAH!!!!!!! A voice of reason and sanity!!!!!!

Wolf
07-08-2006, 02:55 PM
if DD gets 2000 yards total one of 2 things will happen

1)Texans will score around 30 points a game

or

2)AJ,Putzer(or whoever playes TE),and Moulds still aren't getting open.

DocBar
07-08-2006, 03:06 PM
if DD gets 2000 yards total one of 2 things will happen

1)Texans will score around 30 points a game

or

2)AJ,Putzer(or whoever playes TE),and Moulds still aren't getting open.
I think it's an attainable goal within the confines of Kubes system. Even if the TE and/or Moulds isn't getting open, we would still be gaining positive yards and moving the chains. Edge, LT, Emmitt Smith have all put up numbers like that and still had receivers making big yards. I wouldn't mind 30 points a game at all. 1,500-1,600 yds rushing and 400-500 receiving would be just fine in my book.

texan279
07-08-2006, 03:09 PM
look for DD to produce a combined 2000 yards.

2000 yards? Only 3 running backs have done that in the last 3 seasons, Tiki Barber, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Jamal Lewis, and the season Lewis did it, he had over 2000 rushing yards alone. I think expecting 2000 combined yards from DD is a bit much, I would like to see him get healthy and start 16 games before we start expecting a 2000 yard season from DD, he's been rehabbing that knee for 7 months now. Hell, Carson Palmer sustained numerous ligament tears, a shredded ligament, damaged cartilage, and a dislocated knee cap all AFTER Davis had already had his surgery and Palmer was participating in minicamp and doing 11 on 11 drills two weeks ago.

DocBar
07-08-2006, 03:35 PM
2000 yards? Only 3 running backs have done that in the last 3 seasons, Tiki Barber, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Jamal Lewis, and the season Lewis did it, he had over 2000 rushing yards alone. I think expecting 2000 combined yards from DD is a bit much, I would like to see him get healthy and start 16 games before we start expecting a 2000 yard season from DD, he's been rehabbing that knee for 7 months now. Hell, Carson Palmer sustained numerous ligament tears, a shredded ligament, damaged cartilage, and a dislocated knee cap all AFTER Davis had already had his surgery and Palmer was participating in minicamp and doing 11 on 11 drills two weeks ago.
Man, you rained all over my parade!!! What's up with that?
:brickwall

thunderkyss
07-08-2006, 04:50 PM
2000 yards? Only 3 running backs have done that in the last 3 seasons, Tiki Barber, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Jamal Lewis, and the season Lewis did it, he had over 2000 rushing yards alone. I think expecting 2000 combined yards from DD is a bit much, I would like to see him get healthy and start 16 games before we start expecting a 2000 yard season from DD, he's been rehabbing that knee for 7 months now. Hell, Carson Palmer sustained numerous ligament tears, a shredded ligament, damaged cartilage, and a dislocated knee cap all AFTER Davis had already had his surgery and Palmer was participating in minicamp and doing 11 on 11 drills two weeks ago.

IN 2004, DD ran and recieved for 1800 yards in 15 games. ..... I'm only expected another 200............. 224 to be exact.

killeentexan
07-08-2006, 04:55 PM
2000 yards? Only 3 running backs have done that in the last 3 seasons, Tiki Barber, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Jamal Lewis, and the season Lewis did it, he had over 2000 rushing yards alone. I think expecting 2000 combined yards from DD is a bit much, I would like to see him get healthy and start 16 games before we start expecting a 2000 yard season from DD, he's been rehabbing that knee for 7 months now. Hell, Carson Palmer sustained numerous ligament tears, a shredded ligament, damaged cartilage, and a dislocated knee cap all AFTER Davis had already had his surgery and Palmer was participating in minicamp and doing 11 on 11 drills two weeks ago.
ummmm, not quite correct....Tiki has topped 2,000 yds each of the last 2 years. Ahman Green did it in '03, Priest Holmes in '03, Edgerrin James in '04, Larry Johnson in '05, Jamal Lewis in '03, Deuce McAllister in '03 and Tomlinson in '03. Thats 9 times by 8 different running backs in the last 3 years alone. While I'm not saying that Dom will also top 2,000 yds....it is a distinct possibility if he stays healthy. Heck, he had 1,776 yds in 15 games in '04. If we have improved as much as we all hope we have.....Davis can get to 2,000 yds.

texan279
07-08-2006, 08:34 PM
ummmm, not quite correct....Tiki has topped 2,000 yds each of the last 2 years. Ahman Green did it in '03, Priest Holmes in '03, Edgerrin James in '04, Larry Johnson in '05, Jamal Lewis in '03, Deuce McAllister in '03 and Tomlinson in '03. Thats 9 times by 8 different running backs in the last 3 years alone. While I'm not saying that Dom will also top 2,000 yds....it is a distinct possibility if he stays healthy. Heck, he had 1,776 yds in 15 games in '04. If we have improved as much as we all hope we have.....Davis can get to 2,000 yds.

You're right, I went to a different site and double checked, the site I got the stats from the first time had wrong stats posted, won't go to that site again. IMO those backs are on a different level than DD, these backs I consider "great" compared to DD who I consider to be a "good" back. Also, every back that has done it has been to the pro bowl before, something I honestly do not think Davis will ever do. With the additions to our offense like Moulds and Putzier in place to spread the field, improved coaching, and hopefully more time for Carr in the backfield, I don't think Davis will be that safety valve for Carr like he has been in the past, especially after hearing the comments about Carr going through reads on pass plays instead of locking onto one receiver and waiting for him to get open like has been done in the past. I am not trying to dog on Davis here, but IMO he will never be a "great" back or go to a pro bowl, and if he ever does gain a combined 2000 yards or goes to a pro bowl, I'll come back for my hot plate of crow...

DocBar
07-09-2006, 06:25 AM
You're right, I went to a different site and double checked, the site I got the stats from the first time had wrong stats posted, won't go to that site again. IMO those backs are on a different level than DD, these backs I consider "great" compared to DD who I consider to be a "good" back. Also, every back that has done it has been to the pro bowl before, something I honestly do not think Davis will ever do. With the additions to our offense like Moulds and Putzier in place to spread the field, improved coaching, and hopefully more time for Carr in the backfield, I don't think Davis will be that safety valve for Carr like he has been in the past, especially after hearing the comments about Carr going through reads on pass plays instead of locking onto one receiver and waiting for him to get open like has been done in the past. I am not trying to dog on Davis here, but IMO he will never be a "great" back or go to a pro bowl, and if he ever does gain a combined 2000 yards or goes to a pro bowl, I'll come back for my hot plate of crow...
I don't like to use the pro bowl tag too much. That seems to be more of a popularity thing than anything else. Lots of guys go just on name recognition.
DD has put up the #'s to prove he is a productive back who should be in the upper echelon. Maybe not top 5, but top 10 easily. And Edge and Marshall Faulk put up great #'s despite all the weapons at Manning's and Warner's disposal.

DocBar
07-09-2006, 04:33 PM
From profootballtalk:
But the Texans also should get a pass for passing on Bush if Domanick Davis becomes a Pro Bowler (and we think he will) in Kubiak's system. Sure, it's still possible that Bush will become the NFL's Michael Jordan (and Williams the football equivalent of Sam Bowie), but the powers-that-be in Houston were put off by his handling of the scandal that erupted in the days prior to the draft, and we tend to agree with the notion that, while Reggie says all of the right things when folks are watching, Bush very well could turn out to be a problem child behind closed doors.

Answers a few questions if not all.

real
07-10-2006, 09:01 AM
by definition, a bust is a talented individual who has not produced....... give me the guy with less talent, and more production anyday.


Of course...But IMO, thats a hindsight statement... You nor anyone else knows who's going to bust and who isn't...If you were in charge of a teams draft, you wouldn't pass on Mario Williams to take Elvis Dumerville...And you Wouldn't pass on Reggie Bush to Take Lendale White....Even though Lendale may score more TD's, and ultimately become the better player, and Dumerville may put up more sacks(not saying this IS going to happen)...There is no way you pass on the more talented player...

thunderkyss
07-10-2006, 09:48 AM
Of course...But IMO, thats a hindsight statement... You nor anyone else knows who's going to bust and who isn't...If you were in charge of a teams draft, you wouldn't pass on Mario Williams to take Elvis Dumerville...And you Wouldn't pass on Reggie Bush to Take Lendale White....Even though Lendale may score more TD's, and ultimately become the better player, and Dumerville may put up more sacks(not saying this IS going to happen)...There is no way you pass on the more talented player...

At the same time, I won't draft Reggie Bush with the #1 overall, if I have DD, and I'm pleased with what he has done in our system. If I'm pleased with his numbers, I would not draft a Running back with the #1 overall, because that says to him that you are no longer the man in Houston...... sure, we can play two guys..... but it's obvious to see what we're doing here.

And then with my statement earlier about busts....... talented individuals who do not produce..... it takes more than talent to make it in the NFL.... and sometimes........ most of the time actually, it's more difficult to find that extra something.

That's why you'll have a QB taken 2nd, and 11th overall have better(and longer) careers than the #1 QB taken that year. Or a 7th round QB take a team to 3 SuperBowl Championships, where many #1 overalls never get to the SuperBowl at all.

A bird in the hand, that's all I'm saying in respect to DD.

real
07-10-2006, 10:10 AM
At the same time, I won't draft Reggie Bush with the #1 overall, if I have DD, and I'm pleased with what he has done in our system. If I'm pleased with his numbers, I would not draft a Running back with the #1 overall, because that says to him that you are no longer the man in Houston...... sure, we can play two guys..... but it's obvious to see what we're doing here.


I understand what you are saying, But I won't get into the reasons we should or shouldn't have drafted reggie bush...And I definitely won't speculate on why the Texans decided to go with Mario because that isn't what the point of my argument is...My argument is that Stats can't judge talent...Thats all...I know you say you want DD over RB...but would you feel the same way if they were in the same draft ? No....There are DE's that put up better stats than Mario...We Still took him though...Why? Because the Texans feel he was the most talented DE with the most potential....Which brings me back full circle...DD has put up good/decent stats in his NFL career...BUT He is not an overly talented back...Im not saying anything is wrong with that...Im just stating my opinion on DD...

DocBar
07-10-2006, 10:58 AM
I understand what you are saying, But I won't get into the reasons we should or shouldn't have drafted reggie bush...And I definitely won't speculate on why the Texans decided to go with Mario because that isn't what the point of my argument is...My argument is that Stats can't judge talent...Thats all...I know you say you want DD over RB...but would you feel the same way if they were in the same draft ? No....There are DE's that put up better stats than Mario...We Still took him though...Why? Because the Texans feel he was the most talented DE with the most potential....Which brings me back full circle...DD has put up good/decent stats in his NFL career...BUT He is not an overly talented back...Im not saying anything is wrong with that...Im just stating my opinion on DD...
We're STILL doing the stats thing? I think this is an area where people just have to agree to disagree. Statistically speaking would you say that opinions are like... I'm just kiddin and havin some fun!!!!

real
07-10-2006, 11:02 AM
We're STILL doing the stats thing? I think this is an area where people just have to agree to disagree. Statistically speaking would you say that opinions are like... I'm just kiddin and havin some fun!!!!

It's all good....:chicken:

DocBar
07-10-2006, 11:04 AM
:francis: It's all good....:chicken:

The Pencil Neck
07-10-2006, 01:37 PM
DD has put up good/decent stats in his NFL career...BUT He is not an overly talented back...Im not saying anything is wrong with that...Im just stating my opinion on DD...

Actually, I think this is an excellent point but not the point you were wanting to make. :)

I think Reggie Bush is OVERLY talented. To get the most production out of this guy, you've got to find all sorts of ways to find him touches because he's such a threat and so damned talented. And when you do that, your offense starts becoming one-dimensional. You get a situation like the Lions had with Barry Sanders. Great back. Incredible to watch. Some of his most exciting runs were just back to the line of scrimmage.

For Barry to be successful, you had to feed him the ball over and over. He'd have 15 runs for 20 yards total and then break an 80 yarder. By the time he broke that run, his team was usually out of the game. When he did get to the playoffs, he got SHUT down.

I think Bush is going to be very similar to that. For him to be successful, his team will have to fail. And if he's a high first rounder, the team is almost obligated to dedicate those touches to him regardless of how it impacts their chemistry.

I think DD has a good chance to be successful in this offense. And I think we have a better chance of having a successful team with people other than Bush.

But that's just me...

DocBar
07-10-2006, 01:51 PM
Actually, I think this is an excellent point but not the point you were wanting to make. :)

I think Reggie Bush is OVERLY talented. To get the most production out of this guy, you've got to find all sorts of ways to find him touches because he's such a threat and so damned talented. And when you do that, your offense starts becoming one-dimensional. You get a situation like the Lions had with Barry Sanders. Great back. Incredible to watch. Some of his most exciting runs were just back to the line of scrimmage.

For Barry to be successful, you had to feed him the ball over and over. He'd have 15 runs for 20 yards total and then break an 80 yarder. By the time he broke that run, his team was usually out of the game. When he did get to the playoffs, he got SHUT down.

I think Bush is going to be very similar to that. For him to be successful, his team will have to fail. And if he's a high first rounder, the team is almost obligated to dedicate those touches to him regardless of how it impacts their chemistry.

I think DD has a good chance to be successful in this offense. And I think we have a better chance of having a successful team with people other than Bush.

But that's just me...
Very good way to put that. Here's a question: Would you rather have a telented back or productive back? As has been pointed out, the two are not the same.

thunderkyss
07-10-2006, 02:17 PM
I understand what you are saying, But I won't get into the reasons we should or shouldn't have drafted reggie bush...And I definitely won't speculate on why the Texans decided to go with Mario because that isn't what the point of my argument is...My argument is that Stats can't judge talent...Thats all...I know you say you want DD over RB...but would you feel the same way if they were in the same draft ? No....There are DE's that put up better stats than Mario...We Still took him though...Why? Because the Texans feel he was the most talented DE with the most potential....Which brings me back full circle...DD has put up good/decent stats in his NFL career...BUT He is not an overly talented back...Im not saying anything is wrong with that...Im just stating my opinion on DD...

Ok, you're equating talent with being the better athlete(player)

I don't do that........ that may be the difference there.

But in this draft, with Kubiak as our head coach, if we were to draft a runningback, I'd have been just as happy with D'Angelo, Addai, or Reggie.....


Michael Bennett, or DD............ I'm going with DD because he is the better player. He has produced more with less.

Edgerin James over Ricky Williams?? who is the better player?? They are equally talented....... but who'd have thought Rikki (who never got hurt in college) would end up getting hurt his first three seasons?? Who'd have known he was a pot head?? who'd have known he'll make some goofy decisions?? (obviously the Colts must have known......... )

Vince Young.......... or Matt Lienart...... who is the better player?? Stats are about the same......... yards per attempt........ completion percentage..... Matt only has more passing yards, because he threw the ball more(because UT was blowing games out, and Vince sat in the 4th Quarter)....... But Vince also has rushing yards, where Matt doesn't....... all the while, throwing just as often as Matt......

real
07-10-2006, 02:29 PM
Ok, you're equating talent with being the better athlete(player)

I don't do that........ that may be the difference there.

But in this draft, with Kubiak as our head coach, if we were to draft a runningback, I'd have been just as happy with D'Angelo, Addai, or Reggie.....


Michael Bennett, or DD............ I'm going with DD because he is the better player. He has produced more with less.

Edgerin James over Ricky Williams?? who is the better player?? They are equally talented....... but who'd have thought Rikki (who never got hurt in college) would end up getting hurt his first three seasons?? Who'd have known he was a pot head?? who'd have known he'll make some goofy decisions?? (obviously the Colts must have known......... )

Vince Young.......... or Matt Lienart...... who is the better player?? Stats are about the same......... yards per attempt........ completion percentage..... Matt only has more passing yards, because he threw the ball more(because UT was blowing games out, and Vince sat in the 4th Quarter)....... But Vince also has rushing yards, where Matt doesn't....... all the while, throwing just as often as Matt......

Again...the EJ vs. RW is a hindsight argument that no one could have predicted...And I am not so blissfully oblivious to not know that the more talented player doesn't always turn out to be a better pro...And the Matt Vs. Vince is a perfect example...IMO, VY is more talented, and may ultimately have more of an "impact" on his team...but i do think that Matt will put up better numbers, and will probably win more over the course of his career...Who is the better player?? what do you mean by that ? Who will be more productive ? Who will have the better career or Who has more talent ? If you meant who has more talent IMO, its vince all day long...And no i'm not equating talent with anything...Talent stands by itself...Stats, production, and all the things we can track = a players success...A players talent and success don't always make a pretty correlation...

thunderkyss
07-10-2006, 03:09 PM
Talent stands by itself...Stats, production, and all the things we can track = a players success...A players talent and success don't always make a pretty correlation...


I totally agree....... and that's why I'll use stats many times to justify my argument.

and to me, If I have a talented player who puts up good stats(DD), and another who is more talented, but doesn't produce, or who hasn't produced as much(Bennette, Goings, etc.......), I'm going to say the one who produced is the better player, until that more talented guy starts producing........ maybe it's because of his team(I can't see how DD's team is a plus for him against anyone in the league right now)..... maybe it's his will....... or his tenacity.... who knows??

real
07-10-2006, 03:26 PM
I totally agree....... and that's why I'll use stats many times to justify my argument.

and to me, If I have a talented player who puts up good stats(DD), and another who is more talented, but doesn't produce, or who hasn't produced as much(Bennette, Goings, etc.......), I'm going to say the one who produced is the better player, until that more talented guy starts producing........ maybe it's because of his team(I can't see how DD's team is a plus for him against anyone in the league right now)..... maybe it's his will....... or his tenacity.... who knows??

I understand exactly what you are saying....But my whole point has been that stats don't neccessarily tell the whole story...thats it...nothing more, nothing less....I am not big on DD and I think too much is read into the stats that he has put up...I believe that there are many more backs that can do better or just as good as he has in our system...

The Pencil Neck
07-10-2006, 05:05 PM
Very good way to put that. Here's a question: Would you rather have a telented back or productive back? As has been pointed out, the two are not the same.

I want players that produce on the field not at the combine. I don't care so much about their 40-times or short shuttles or long jumps. Someone can have great potential but still be missing unmeasurables that are critical.

Of course, that could be turned around on me because I'm a Carr supporter and he hasn't produced. :) I'm a Carr supporter because I think his lack of production was a symptom of the system he was playing in. Like several other people have stated, this year is the year we find out.

With Domanick, I think he's shown that he can be a productive back. Last year wasn't so great (even though he had 4.2 yards per carry and 8.6 yards per catch) but he has averaged over a 1,000 a year in an offense against which defenses could overload the line to stop him and virtually ignore the pass.