PDA

View Full Version : Kub will Prove the Denver Texans Right


CloakNNNdagger
08-06-2006, 10:51 AM
.............in their approach to which positions they prioritize. They obviously have already clearly stated that an expensive, potentially very productive runner in the form of Reggie Bush, is like putting a huge, expensive diamond (long term big time cap monies) in a cheap, thin and weak setting (expected longevity). The diamond will be lost when the cheap setting gives way............and that WILL BE sooner than later.

Even Hall of Fame running backs such as O.J. Simpson and Earl Campbell had only five good years.

This article from the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_4141568) does a great job of shedding light on the system and the approach to RB that Kub has brought with him to the Texans. It may be a view that Kub and team has taken heat for in recent months, but one that has been felt by and have "subconciously" guided many other teams without them realizing it.

Even though, the system which Kub brings us is driven by run 1st, pass 2 nd..........it's the receivers that seem to be more the "bring home the bacon" players. Of course, the OL support still needs to be strong. But even the D in this system, as demonstrated by the preferential pick overshadows the importance of obtaining a "superlative" RB.

As pertains to running backs, as far as Kub and system are concerned the Texans will be investing for "today," because, as we have all found out before, "tommorrow" may never "come."

beerlover
08-06-2006, 10:56 AM
one could only imagine now what the possiblilties would have been with Bush in Kubiak's system :rolleyes:

Hookem Horns
08-06-2006, 11:10 AM
one could only imagine now what the possiblilties would have been with Bush in Kubiak's system :rolleyes:

Yeah, some flashy player to come in on 3rd downs and return punts. ;)

MorKnolle
08-06-2006, 11:40 AM
one could only imagine now what the possiblilties would have been with Bush in Kubiak's system :rolleyes:

Probably about the same as Clinton Portis' as soon as our OLine is that good. That would be nice to have, but not anywhere near a necessity considering what "lesser" backs have been able to accomplish for them. I don't regret the pick at all and I'm sure the team doesn't either, despite what much of the media is making it out to be.

WildBlackBear32
08-06-2006, 12:05 PM
one could only imagine now what the possiblilties would have been with Bush in Kubiak's system :rolleyes:

Probably pretty average since the system isn't designed for Shake and Bake runners.

tulexan
08-06-2006, 12:13 PM
This article basically shows how stupid the Bush pick was for New Orleans. Not only do they have one expensive player at the riskiest position for injuries, but they have two.

I would have liked to of had Bush on our team, but in the long run Mario was the better pick. The system is more important than the back and we have a lot of young talented players. If one of them doesn't step up this season then we will look for one in free agency or the draft next season. But I think one will step up. I'm not sure which one, but one of them will.

nunusguy
08-06-2006, 12:24 PM
It's well know that Kubiak was very interested and reportedly prepared to move up into the latter part of the first round and exchange multiple picks to
have the opportunity to draft D. Williams or L. Maroney, but was out maneuvered by another team for the first round pick he coveted. So this tends to blunt the point of this story that Denver, or a student of "The Denver System", won't pay big value for a running back. But to support the story point, Kubiak did pass on the back of the decade for a non-QB at
another position.
What really intrigues me is the thought of Kubiak maybe prefering one of the other two backs over Bush for his version of "The Denver System" here in
Houston ?

CloakNNNdagger
08-06-2006, 12:42 PM
It's well know that Kubiak was very interested and reportedly prepared to move up into the latter part of the first round and exchange multiple picks to
have the opportunity to draft D. Williams or L. Maroney, but was out maneuvered by another team for the first round pick he coveted. So this tends to blunt the point of this story that Denver, or a student of "The Denver System", won't pay big value for a running back. But to support the story point, Kubiak did pass on the back of the decade for a non-QB at
another position.
What really intrigues me is the thought of Kubiak maybe prefering one of the other two backs over Bush for his version of "The Denver System" here in
Houston ?

The most likely reason is that neither of them are "shake and bake" runners...........just find the hole and straight line it.:

D. Wiliams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/williams_deangelo) profile sounds duplicate to DD


L. Maroney (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/maroney_laurence)

WildBlackBear32
08-06-2006, 12:45 PM
The most likely reason is that neither of them are "shake and bake" runners...........just find the hole and straight line it.:

D. Wiliams (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/williams_deangelo) profile sounds duplicate to DD


L. Maroney (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2006/maroney_laurence)

To me, Maroney would have been the perfect fit for the system. He plays a lot like Shaun Alexander.

TwinSisters
08-06-2006, 02:57 PM
Just a couple of things that this article is missing:

The Broncos picked up Troy Calhoun and Jake Plummer in 2003. It's pretty safe to say these two additions played a part in letting Portis go.
----

The Seahawks and Holmgren had to use Alexander because Hasselbeck wasn't getting it done ( specifically problems in the Red zone, WR's dropping balls, and the attitude problems.. along with a whole host of other 'problems' ). His situation in Seattle is entirely different then what is/was going on in Denver.

TexanBacker93
08-06-2006, 05:54 PM
A great line makes an average running back great. A poor line makes a great running back average.

If the Texans can get a dominant line going that can be consistent over the next decade they can plug an average runner into the backfield and he'll turn into a 1200yd 10td back.

painekiller
08-06-2006, 06:08 PM
What seem to be lost here is the OL was better than average at run blocking. And they were the worst in the league at pass blocking. People confuse the two different areas.

Also IMO the big reason Bush was not taken had to do with him not appearing truthful when questioned about the scandal and him being a IMEMINE type. Bush was making it clear to the team they were lucky to get a shot at him.

Give me the man Mario Williams is any day over the man Bush is.

TexanBacker93
08-06-2006, 06:10 PM
I don't think the line was above average at run blocking. They were better than they were at pass blocking, though. There was a lot of room for improvement.

Tx'nFanLostInSkinCountry
08-06-2006, 06:58 PM
What seem to be lost here is the OL was better than average at run blocking. And they were the worst in the league at pass blocking. People confuse the two different areas.

Also IMO the big reason Bush was not taken had to do with him not appearing truthful when questioned about the scandal and him being a IMEMINE type. Bush was making it clear to the team they were lucky to get a shot at him.

Give me the man Mario Williams is any day over the man Bush is.
YES YES YES best post on the thread yet. Painekiller IMO you have said it all.

Mysteryhunt
08-06-2006, 07:13 PM
my thoughts on bush: (from a usc student) he's good, but even if he is priest holmes/larry johnson good (which is unlikely i mean, come on), how well do the cheifs do with their outstanding running game. D MATTERS.

NoBullTexan
08-06-2006, 07:59 PM
That was proven by Arizona last year when they had two WRs with over 100 catches in a season and still was in the bottom of the league insofar as won lost records are concerned. They didn't have anybody that could run the bal and even if they did their offensive line was at least as bad as ours, if not worse. This year they have gone out and gottne the RB, but without the offensive line to block and the defense to keep the other team wihin striking distance, they will still be a bottom dweller. We on the other hand, did the smart thing in building up our defensive line, and we added one pro bowl type LB in DeMeco. We also improved our offensive line, and it will show, this year, in the won-loss column, and if we continue to build with defense first, we will get to that elusive championship we all thirst for. We did the right thing by not taking Bush.

painekiller
08-06-2006, 09:24 PM
I don't think the line was above average at run blocking. They were better than they were at pass blocking, though. There was a lot of room for improvement.


And how many teams are beating down Jonathan Wells door. He had how many yds last year? DD is good but not so good that he always a 1000yd back.

The team could run the ball, they just could not avoid the penalty or the sack.

Doody
08-07-2006, 03:04 AM
Probably about the same as Clinton Portis' as soon as our OLine is that good. That would be nice to have, but not anywhere near a necessity considering what "lesser" backs have been able to accomplish for them. I don't regret the pick at all and I'm sure the team doesn't either, despite what much of the media is making it out to be.
This is why we go for the Adrian Peterson bowl this year

TK_Gamer
08-07-2006, 06:14 AM
my thoughts on bush: (from a usc student) he's good, but even if he is priest holmes/larry johnson good (which is unlikely i mean, come on), how well do the cheifs do with their outstanding running game. D MATTERS.

I live in Kansas, saw plenty of holmes and johnson, bush will never be that. priest holmes is possibly one of the better pass blocking rb's in football, and he can catch like a slot reciever, hes a true vision rb, larry johnson is a beast he wont miss not having richardson to make holes for him, he makes his own holes. bush is a scatt back, anyone see the championship game? ever wonder why bush got 1/4 the carrys ? he couldnt run inside and the texas defense was to quick to the edge to run outside. bush had 2 good plays the whole game, one was a highlight reel touchdown run. but sorry, they lost the game, all that supposed talent and they didnt use him hardly till the game was out of reach anyway.

now look at the talk from coaches , pro bowl/super bowl caliber players, telling us mario is a beast, he is the strongest athletic lineman they have ever seen. they say he moves like a DB, a 300 lb DB ! he has beat everyone on our team in 1 on 1's some very badly. lol

yeah, I'll take Mario any day....

Ye Olde Pro
08-07-2006, 07:05 AM
Unfortunately I believe that way too much emphasis was put on Reggie Bush's flash, and not enough on his ability. I spent an awful lot of time watching this kid when it became obvious that we were likely to draft him, and what I saw did not get me too excited.

He is a very talented, quick, elusive running back that in all likelyhood will be reasonably successful in the right system. But, go back and watch all the film of him and I do believe that you will find one glaring fault in his game. He goes down way too easy! As long as he is able to elude a defender he's cool, but put a hand on him and you've got him! Frankly I'm kind of surprised that he was able to avoid injury considering his style. And remember, all this flash and dash was against college teams. He won't be able to avoid collisions wth NFL players the way he did in school.

I watched him in 4 games before USC played Texas, and in those 4 games I saw him break 2 tackles. Two!!! And I don't recall anything spectacular in the Rose Bowl either, where he faced, for the first time all season I might add, the kind of team speed that he'll see in the pros. Do you really want to spend that kind of money, and hang all of your hopes on a guy who Fall Down Go Boom???

Have to admit I was surprised by the 1st pick, but not at all unhappy.

Just my two cents.

TexanBacker93
08-07-2006, 11:38 PM
And how many teams are beating down Jonathan Wells door. He had how many yds last year? DD is good but not so good that he always a 1000yd back.

The team could run the ball, they just could not avoid the penalty or the sack.

You make a valid point. I looked it up and the Texans were tied with Cincy and Washington for 9th overall in YPC at 4.2 which isn't bad for a team. I'd rather be at 4.7 like Denver and I think the team will be. They were closer to the top than the bottom so I will amend my statement, partially.

I still think there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to run blocking. I think consistency needs to be improved and the lack of rushing TDs is scary, but that's a reflection on the offense as a whole as much as the run blocking.

infantrycak
08-07-2006, 11:42 PM
You make a valid point. I looked it up and the Texans were tied with Cincy and Washington for 9th overall in YPC at 4.2 which isn't bad for a team.

Keep in mind the Texans' average was lifted (rather than depressed as it is for most teams) by the QB's run average of 5.5 ypc. The RB's overall averaged about 4.0 ypc which drops to mid pack.

TexanBacker93
08-07-2006, 11:50 PM
Keep in mind the Texans' average was lifted (rather than depressed as it is for most teams) by the QB's run average of 5.5 ypc. The RB's overall averaged about 4.0 ypc which drops to mid pack.

True, but I think he's right that the run blocking gets an unfair rep. The line is regarded as the worst line in professional football history because of it's pass protection. They haven't been a horrible run blocking team.

edo783
08-08-2006, 12:12 AM
True, but I think he's right that the run blocking gets an unfair rep. The line is regarded as the worst line in professional football history because of it's pass protection. They haven't been a horrible run blocking team.

True. Most confuse that aspect of what the line did or did not do last year.