PDA

View Full Version : It's the RUNNING BACK, STUPID.


Nighthawk
10-15-2007, 09:02 PM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 09:03 PM
fully agreed...lets give up our first round pick next year so we can get to 9-7.

Texans_Chick
10-15-2007, 09:25 PM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.

I say we go to Costco and pick us up a spare running back. As I said last week, I saw a big muscular guy there who looked pretty fast. You need to pay with cash, check or Amex to shop there, and you also need a membership card.

Tell me your names of all these backs better than Green, and what price you are willing to pay after Game 6 of the season to get a back who hasn't practiced with you.

Personally, I think there are some fundamental issues that the Texans have with their run game other than just the backs. I don't buy the backs, the offensive line, the scheme, or the play calling. I have never been convinced that the Kubiak passing game can work along with the Sherman run game. Show me which regular season game the Texans have had where they work together.

Kornele23
10-15-2007, 09:25 PM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.


You gotta love guys like you. You make no sense what so ever. You want to give up our future for now.....lol. Are you kidding? We are a work in progress and we need to be patient. We are going to win our fair share of games this year but we arent going to the superbowl. Be realistic.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 09:27 PM
I have never been convinced that the Kubiak passing game can work along with the Sherman run game. Show me which regular season game the Texans have had where they work together.
Funny...someone emailed me today and asked me what I thought of the team at this juncture and I made an analogy of combining a Chinese buffet with a Mexican restaurant as I mentioned the Sherman man blocking scheme with Kubiak's zone blocking scheme. Two very popular kinds of food but an awful combination.

beerlover
10-15-2007, 09:35 PM
this is the only guy worth dealing for & apparently he's not going anywhere-

General Manager A.J. Smith reiterated yesterday that Michael Turner will remain a Charger through the 2007 season, the same thing he promised when he took Turner off the market in April.

But Smith covets Turner not only for his contributions in situations such as Sunday's blowout victory at Denver, in which Turner ran 10 times for 147 yards and a touchdown, but also for insurance in case Tomlinson were to get hurt.

“The most important thing is this season,” Smith said.

Smith also expects to get a third-round pick as recompense for losing Turner in free agency.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071009/news_1s9chnotes.html

that would be a compenstory end of 3rd rd. pick-

Texans_Chick
10-15-2007, 09:49 PM
Funny...someone emailed me today and asked me what I thought of the team at this juncture and I made an analogy of combining a Chinese buffet with a Mexican restaurant as I mentioned the Sherman man blocking scheme with Kubiak's zone blocking scheme. Two very popular kinds of food but an awful combination.

LOL. This is what I said last May in part:

Mike Sherman as OC: What Does This Mean for the Texans Offense? (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/05/31/mike-sherman-as-oc-what-does-this-mean-for-the-texans-offense/)

I can't say I particularly see the Sherman-Green Bay style of power offense as being particularly meshable with the Denver-style zone blocking misdirection offense. The best offenses in my mind have always been those with a very definable direction and philosophy. Sometimes when you take the best of two things, it makes a better whole, but other times it makes a mishmash. You know, the chocolate and peanut butter thing works well together for a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, but I'm sure though I like single malt scotch and breakfast tacos, I can't say I'd want to mix them.

Eric Winston in a radio interview said he thought that the linemen for the Texans had a good combination of agility and power to run both power and zone blocking. All lines do some sort of combo blocking, even the Denver line know for its ZBS, but I think that they have more of a philosophical direction on what sort of linemen they want--roadgraders or lighter agile guys. Sometimes if you try to be good at too many things, you are good at nothing.

When Kubiak came to the Texans, the pundits were all high on the Texans running game, thinking it would be an insert back here, gain a ton of yards. And the truth is that much of that came from the blocking scheme they ran, how it meshed with the passing game, the offensive line blocking and the running backs coach. Things that didn't get stole from Denver. (The parts of the offense run by ex-Denver guys are the parts that work the best, esp TE coach).

And what happened instead was that the Denver running game never translated to the Texans because they didn't have the pieces, parts and scheme to run it, but that the Denver passing game got worse because the guy grooming their QBs and helping their wide receivers left to be the Texans head coach.

hookinreds
10-15-2007, 09:57 PM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.

Where was this post between week 2 and 3?

Vinny
10-15-2007, 10:05 PM
Eric Winston in a radio interview said he thought that the linemen for the Texans had a good combination of agility and power to run both power and zone blocking. All lines do some sort of combo blocking, even the Denver line know for its ZBS, but I think that they have more of a philosophical direction on what sort of linemen they want--roadgraders or lighter agile guys. Sometimes if you try to be good at too many things, you are good at nothing.

this is some of what I wrote earlier fwiw...

Our backs scare no one, we have a bunch of second grade wr's on the field, the line has a journeyman LT, a washed up Center and a RT that is a better pass blocker than a run blocker at a traditionally run block heavy position. Fred Weary is probably the only player on the line that seems to be winning all his battles....some of this reason I have to pin on their trying to run Denver's blocking scheme but forcing Sherman and his man concepts in...it's like mixing a Mexican restaurant with a Chinese buffet. You may think you are serving more folks what they want, but it's an awful combination. I could be off-base on this but I don't like our hybrid blocking schemes....they need to go with a power man scheme (sherman) or a zone scheme (kubiak)...this hybrid crap where you don't do either well but do a little of everything isn't working. It's like when you buy a all in one device appliance...it gets the job done, but it everything works worse than a stand alone device. I know that most teams use a bit of both concepts...but they tend to make a game plan that uses one more than the other depending on the opponent. We seem to line up in a power set one play and use a zone concept the next....I don't see any rhyme or reason to it...just seems like a clusterblank.

Runner
10-15-2007, 10:06 PM
Sometimes if you try to be good at too many things, you are good at nothing.


...this hybrid crap where you don't do either well but do a little of everything isn't working. It's like when you buy a all in one device appliance...it gets the job done, but it does everything works worse than a stand alone device.

I posted similar jack-of-all trades master-of-none sentiments about Kubiak's tendency to like swing players on the line. I don't want a left tackle because he can play right tackle too. I'd like to see a left tackle. Same thing with guys who can play guard and tackle - they are OK for spot dury, but they shouldn't be relied on as long term starters, IMO.

Between the finesse/power blocking and swing players, the o-line probably has an identity crisis.

Busa_Bill
10-15-2007, 10:10 PM
Where was this post between week 2 and 3?
Somewhere between 2-0, and getting your heart ripped out by the champs.
You could see the decline starting in that game. The ball stopped bouncing our way, and the players heads began drifting to another place.
Missed opportunities, miscues, penalties; it all started in game 3 and has continued since. Call me Cptn. Obvious, but it is what it is.
Our team has to find its heart again.

Go Texans

RTP2110
10-15-2007, 10:16 PM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.

Trade deadline has passed...........I think

Texans_Chick
10-15-2007, 10:28 PM
I posted similar jack-of-all trades master-of-none sentiments about Kubiak's tendency to like swing players on the line. I don't want a left tackle because he can play right tackle too. I'd like to see a left tackle. Same thing with guys who can play guard and tackle - they are OK for spot dury, but they shouldn't be relied on as long term starters, IMO.

Between the finesse/power blocking and swing players, the o-line probably has an identity crisis.

So me, you and Vinny are in agreement.

I'd prefer to be wrong.

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:36 PM
We run the ZBS. However, because of the personnel we have, or lack thereof, we have to run some sort of power scheme. Not because we want a hybrid offense, but because the team just isn't ready to be fully committed to the ZBS yet. Kubiak still needs to go out and find linemen, since he is for the most part, playing with linemen he inherited, not guys he hand picked.

Specnatz
10-15-2007, 10:36 PM
Trade deadline has passed...........I think

Nope it is Tue sometime not sure the exact time.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 10:37 PM
We run the ZBS. However, because of the personnel we have, or lack thereof, we have to run some sort of power scheme. Not because we want a hybrid offense, but because the team just isn't ready to be fully ZBS yet.um, no...that's not how it goes to the best of my knowledge. This was the master plan and it's not "plan B". I think he likes the feet of Chester and Weary and likes Winston on the outside. Our Guards are really pretty athletic and not a couple of big powerful stiffs.

Texans_Chick
10-15-2007, 10:40 PM
We run the ZBS. However, because of the personnel we have, or lack thereof, we have to run some sort of power scheme. Not because we want a hybrid offense, but because the team just isn't ready to be fully ZBS yet.

No, the Texans don't run the ZBS the way that Denver does. Sherman would get pissed last year if anyone suggested that we ran what Denver runs or that the Texans were running pure ZB.

We run a power/ZB blend because that is what Sherman does. We don't have Alex Gibbs or any of the ZBS disciples coaching our Oline. And this year the Texans increased the amount of power blocking that was done compared to last year. If anything, the team is going the direction of less zone blocking.

Carr Bombed
10-15-2007, 10:41 PM
It's not just the running back........our line isn't pushing ANYBODY around.

beerlover
10-15-2007, 10:41 PM
If there is a split I'd favor Kubiak winning out & Sherman gone maybe after the season. in two drafts Kubiak has used four picks on linemen, one late (6th rd. Lundy) on RB. aquiring Green via FA (Sherman) Gado trade (Sherman). yep, I guess its true :cool:

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:41 PM
um, no...that's not how it goes to the best of my knowledge. This was the master plan and it's not "plan B". I think he likes the feet of Chester and Weary and likes Winston on the outside. Our Guards are really pretty athletic and not a couple of big powerful stiffs.
So it was Kubiak's plan to have a hybrid offense the whole way? It had nothing to do with the horrible running game the Texans had the first few games of his tenure? As I remember it, he brought in Vonta Leach so that he could use an extra blocker at fullback, thus bringing in the need for a power scheme to add to the ZBS that was somewhat implemented.

Fox
10-15-2007, 10:42 PM
Meh, I think Kubs does look for tackles, centers, and guards in his front line guys, but he looks for swing players as back ups. Charles Spencer was drafted to be our LT and that's where he's played. Eric Winston was drafted to be our RT, and although he worked at both tackle positions (mainly RT) in practice last year when he was a back up he is exclusively our RT now. Mike Flanagan and Steve McKinney, both centers although McKinney could play guard if we were in a pinch. Pitts, only guard, same with Weary. It makes sense, we can't afford to bring 10 exclusive 1 position O-Linemen into every game when we only have what, 45 spots on gameday? You bring in 5 guys who can start at their respective positions, and 2 or 3 who are "swing guys" who can fill in at different positions depending on who goes down.

hookinreds
10-15-2007, 10:43 PM
Somewhere between 2-0, and getting your heart ripped out by the champs.
You could see the decline starting in that game. The ball stopped bouncing our way, and the players heads began drifting to another place.
Missed opportunities, miscues, penalties; it all started in game 3 and has continued since. Call me Cptn. Obvious, but it is what it is.
Our team has to find its heart again.

Go Texans

There was that little thing about half our team getting injured in that game as well. This team is having to reach for production in way to many places. Green was doing exactly what the team needed before he got hurt, combine that with the way AJ was tearing apart the DBs and it was a smooth running machine.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 10:46 PM
So it was Kubiak's plan to have a hybrid offense the whole way? It had nothing to do with the horrible running game the Texans had the first few games of his tenure? As I remember it, he brought in Vonta Leach so that he could use an extra blocker at fullback, thus bringing in the need for a power scheme to add to the ZBS that was somewhat implemented.Kubiak hand picked Charles Spencer and he flies in the face of your position that he is forced into using larger players instead of smaller more traditional zone blocking guys...Spencer is a really massive lineman who played a bunch of Guard in College. Explain that one to me if you would.

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:50 PM
So it was Kubiak's plan to have a hybrid offense the whole way? It had nothing to do with the horrible running game the Texans had the first few games of his tenure? As I remember it, he brought in Vonta Leach so that he could use an extra blocker at fullback, thus bringing in the need for a power scheme to add to the ZBS that was somewhat implemented.
Here's the only relevant thing I've found so far:

Texans tackle Eric Winston
(on how the zone blocking scheme is going) “It's doing well. I don’t think we are fully over there. I like to think of our offense as a hybrid right now. We are doing a lot of different things. You know, a lot of teams are either power teams or zone teams and I think we got enough skill on this offensive line and we got the right combination of guys where I think we are getting to be a hybrid of both. I think that is going to pose a lot of problems for defenses and it’s exciting for us playing for it.”

(on it this scheme not being one or another) That’s what I’m saying. We can do both. Usually for power teams you have big, strong guys and for zone teams you have smaller, quicker guys. So, with guys like Chester Pitts and Ephraim (Salaam) that have been in the zone blocking scheme before; in college we did both. We got a lot of guys that can do a lot. Fred Weary is a real strong guy but at the same time he can move. It takes those kind of guys to be able to do both. I think we are fortunate to have those kind of guys to where we can do both.”

(on the second year in the system being more comfortable) “Absolutely. I mean, you’re more comfortable with the terminology, what the coaches are expecting, what they’re looking for, what they want to see. That just makes everyone a little bit better. You know what they want and you know what you need to go out there and do to get better and be a starter on this team. So, it’s just a matter of carrying it forward day by day.”

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:53 PM
Kubiak hand picked Charles Spencer and he flies in the face of your position that he is forced into using larger players instead of smaller more traditional zone blocking guys...Spencer is a really massive lineman who played a bunch of Guard in College. Explain that one to me if you would.
We haven't used Spencer in over a year, but to answer your question, Spencer was drafted because of his footwork. He may be as big as your typical guard, but his footwork makes him a much lighter player out on the field.

GP
10-15-2007, 10:54 PM
Didn't SD turn down a first rounder from Titans for Turner? Guys like him are not available for any price...there are so few "quality" backs in the NFL right now, it's silly. No team is dumb enough to do a Matt Schaub-like trade with their running back.

Face it: Our running back is not coming until free agency or the draft. And I'd bet on the draft.

Discussion over.

Sit here and gag with the rest of us for the remainder of the season, please.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 10:57 PM
Here's the only relevant thing I've found so far:That's weak MT. You took me on and made a point blank statement about how "we run the ZBS" and that we were "forced" to run a power scheme since these linemen weren't his choice...well, I backed up my position with the fact that he drafted Charles Spencer and he is exactly the kind of lineman you said he wasn't looking for. You cut n paste a quote that backs my argument up more than yours....you can do better than that.

We run the ZBS. However, because of the personnel we have, or lack thereof, we have to run some sort of power scheme. Not because we want a hybrid offense, but because the team just isn't ready to be fully committed to the ZBS yet. Kubiak still needs to go out and find linemen, since he is for the most part, playing with linemen he inherited, not guys he hand picked.

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:57 PM
Our running back is coming out of nowhere. Just like Jacoby came out obscurity, so will our running back of the future.

mexican_texan
10-15-2007, 10:58 PM
That's weak MT. You took me on and made a point blank statement about how "we run the ZBS" and that we were "forced" to run a power scheme since these linemen weren't his choice...well, I backed up my position with the fact that he drafted Charles Spencer and he is exactly the kind of lineman you said he wasn't looking for. You cut n paste a quote that backs my argument up more than yours....you can do better than that.
Spencer has the footwork of the prototypical ZBS lineman. Look for my later post.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 10:58 PM
We haven't used Spencer in over a year, but to answer your question, Spencer was drafted because of his footwork. He may be as big as your typical guard, but his footwork makes him a much lighter player out on the field.
lol, you are gonna have to do better than that...I give you a D+ for trying to spin your way out of the argument all the same.

RDillon
10-15-2007, 11:04 PM
What a change from the beginning of the season. We have QB RB WR DE and CB issues. Whats next PR or KR problems? To many we feel as is this is BS. I hope this team doesn't KO our winning season hopes. By the way I hate the IRS. :whip:



This is a mental game as well. If you don't believe in yourself you will always fail .

Runner
10-15-2007, 11:26 PM
Meh, I think Kubs does look for tackles, centers, and guards in his front line guys, but he looks for swing players as back ups. Charles Spencer was drafted to be our LT and that's where he's played.

Charles Spencer played a game and half and he isn't playing this year as we all know. The Texans starting left tackle for the past year and a half is a swing tackle. The person they brought in to challenge for the job this year was valued because he could play guard and tackle. Yes roster spots are limited and mutli-role players are good to have as back-ups, but many teams have real left tackles playing left tackle.

It is a rare player that is elite or even above average at multiple positions. It is even harder for a player on a team that has inferior talent at other positions.

rickyb
10-15-2007, 11:37 PM
fully agreed...lets give up our first round pick next year so we can get to 9-7.

Especially since M Turner is going to be plying his wares on the FA market.

Marcus
10-15-2007, 11:49 PM
It's not just the running back........our line isn't pushing ANYBODY around.

This is the perfect post to make a certain point, which I think is being overlooked. Instead of "It's the RUNNING BACK, STUPID" . .

. . it should be "KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID".

I didn't see this "Kubiak/Sherman hybrid scheme" being questioned in the first two games when the offensive line was winning the battle upfront.

Why make it complicated now?

I know this is a very, very unpopular view, but instead of questioning the scheme, which again, worked quite well apparently the first two games, why not recognize how much the loss of McKinney impacted the running game? Combine that loss with the loss of AJ and Green, and it's going to change how opposing defense is going to be set.

I hate to sound like Capers here, but doesn't matter what 'scheme' you use, the lineman still still has to beat the guy across from him.

Andrew6
10-15-2007, 11:50 PM
The reasons we have had a poor running game I beleive doesn't soley lye on bad running backs. This past week our running game wasn't that bad it was just we were behind and didn't get a chance to run much. We can't run up the middle because our line doesn't give the push that it should/use to.

We started out running the ball fine early but as soon as we got bad penalitys it put jax up ahead and left us fighting to come back. When you have to fight to come back you abandon the running game and try to get down the field. Our major deal is to control the clock better, better play calling, more upfront movement from the Oline

shawn76ers
10-15-2007, 11:50 PM
I would not mind putting J. Jones, in the backfield, for a few plays.
Sorta of like a R.Bush style player, that can turn the corners.
Its clear, that the pressure is coming from the middle, where our Center is lofting it on every play.

Vinny
10-15-2007, 11:51 PM
This is the perfect post to make a certain point, which I think is being overlooked. Instead of "It's the RUNNING BACK, STUPID" . .

. . it should be "KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID".

I didn't see this "Kubiak/Sherman hybrid scheme" being questioned in the first two games when the offensive line was winning the battle upfront.

Why make it complicated now?

I know this is a very, very unpopular view, but instead of questioning the scheme, which again, worked quite well apparently the first two games, why not recognize how much the loss of McKinney impacted the running game? Combine that loss with the loss of AJ and Green, and it's going to change how opposing defense is going to be set.

I hate to sound like Capers here, but doesn't matter what 'scheme' you use, the lineman still still has to beat the guy across from him.
Marcus, this may be a tough concept to grasp, but the more games that are played, the more conclusions you start to draw as you observe the league...that's how it works for me at least.

Napa Auto Parts
10-15-2007, 11:58 PM
fully agreed...lets give up our first round pick next year so we can get to 9-7.



Finally someone knocked some sense in to you. its worth it if we can end up with a chester taylor of tatum bell.:cowboy1:

Goldensilence
10-16-2007, 12:09 AM
I say we go to Costco and pick us up a spare running back. As I said last week, I saw a big muscular guy there who looked pretty fast. You need to pay with cash, check or Amex to shop there, and you also need a membership card.

Tell me your names of all these backs better than Green, and what price you are willing to pay after Game 6 of the season to get a back who hasn't practiced with you.

Personally, I think there are some fundamental issues that the Texans have with their run game other than just the backs. I don't buy the backs, the offensive line, the scheme, or the play calling. I have never been convinced that the Kubiak passing game can work along with the Sherman run game. Show me which regular season game the Texans have had where they work together.

I think this is really a crux of the problem that does get passed over by some people. There should be some headcoaching positions Sherman will be considered for again possibly. I quietly wouldn't mind him taking up another spot. Just really think too many cooks in the kitchen.

On Edit: Isn't Corey Dillion still available?

Fox
10-16-2007, 12:20 AM
Charles Spencer played a game and half and he isn't playing this year as we all know. The Texans starting left tackle for the past year and a half is a swing tackle. The person they brought in to challenge for the job this year was valued because he could play guard and tackle. Yes roster spots are limited and mutli-role players are good to have as back-ups, but many teams have real left tackles playing left tackle.

It is a rare player that is elite or even above average at multiple positions. It is even harder for a player on a team that has inferior talent at other positions.

1 of our 5 starting linemen would best be described as a "swing player" and it's because the incumbent starter blew out his knee last season. Almost every one of our back ups can play multiple positions and I agree with that philosophy for the above mentioned reasons. I agree with you that we need a true LT and I was for drafting Levi Brown for that very reason regardless of Spencer's health status. I just think it's a stretch to criticize Kubes for going after swing players, I think he only brings in swing players in a back up capacity which is an intelligent philosophy, IMO. Salaam is a starter because injury made it a necessity.

Hutch13
10-16-2007, 12:24 AM
Hmmm what about trying to get Chester Taylor as our running back for the remainder of the season, at the right price.

Texanmike02
10-16-2007, 01:32 AM
The alternative, one AJ is back... is to pass to set up the run. Its unorthadox but we need to get MS outside the pocket more. One of the things I've noticed is that he can throw the ball outside of the pocket. If you move him around and move the launch point around, you can spread the defense and have more success running the ball up the middle.

We kind of did that early in the game this week. We actually averaged 4.25 yards a carry in the first half and like 2.8 in the second. This isn't including qb scrambles or that reverse we used to set up the PA later in the game. Its just rb's running the ball.

Mike

76Texan
10-16-2007, 01:50 AM
Well, I'm afraid it will be another tough test for the offense. How will we account for their 2 DEs & Haynesworth?

Moving MS outside the pocket?
That sounds a bit scary.

Nighthawk
10-16-2007, 02:03 AM
Tell me your names of all these backs better than Green, and what price you are willing to pay after Game 6 of the season to get a back who hasn't practiced with you.

I don't know the names. Maybe you do. Tatum Bell, people say, would be available for a 5th or 6th round choice. If that's so, it's a steal. Maybe he's not great but he's better than what we got, though maybe Green's just as good, only not as fresh. But Green's going to get hurt again in a game or two and we'll be back to Dayne and Gado. YOu think that's a good idea?

I mean, you're the hero writer, you probably know a half-dozen backs available for a fairly low price. I'm not saying give up a first day pick (unless, of course, we could get Turner), I'm saying get somebody, anybody, with a little speed and some possibility of spelling Green effectively.

Why is this controversial?

painekiller
10-16-2007, 02:38 AM
No, the Texans don't run the ZBS the way that Denver does. Sherman would get pissed last year if anyone suggested that we ran what Denver runs or that the Texans were running pure ZB.

We run a power/ZB blend because that is what Sherman does. We don't have Alex Gibbs or any of the ZBS disciples coaching our Oline. And this year the Texans increased the amount of power blocking that was done compared to last year. If anything, the team is going the direction of less zone blocking.

I am probably wrong on this, but. There are two schools of thought on ZBS. There is the old school Jimmy Johnson Dallas Cowboy version, the Power Zone. In it you use big guys that block and area, it has been around a long time. (BTW TC knows this but many do not, ZBS only refers to the run blocking). The big guys are also usually good pass blockers due to there size. This is the type blocking system Sherman employs.

Along comes Alex Gibbs and he makes an adjustment to the run game. Go smaller quicker guys, use misdirection, and chop blocking to create backside lanes. The problem with the smaller linemen is they are not as good at pass blocking in the traditional way. Their offense needs play action and role outs to keep the QB alive. Denver is not a good come from behind team, and that is not only because of the lose of Elway.

Kubiak was trained to get an early lead by using play action and role outs to get that 1st half lead, and then going into run the ball to shorten the game mode. The Denver air helps with the wearing down of opponents, BTW Atlanta is the second highest elevation in the league at 1050. The smaller, adjusted to the elevation guys are able to establish the 2nd half running game, and wear the other team out.

IMO you can run both types of running games with the correct guys. Flanagan is not able to run black anymore, and the OC does not want to tell his former college player that. When McKinney was in there (and this kills me to admit) the running game looked good. Without him... Also when did the run game start to click last year? When McKinney took over the center position. He along with Weary and Pitts are an athletic middle with size and strength, that can run both types of ZBS systems.

Marcus
10-16-2007, 04:35 AM
Why is this controversial?

What's controversial, is that you seem to think that there is someone out there that's better, that's not already playing for another team.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

PapaL
10-16-2007, 06:48 AM
I don't know the names. Maybe you do. Tatum Bell, people say, would be available for a 5th or 6th round choice. If that's so, it's a steal. Maybe he's not great but he's better than what we got, though maybe Green's just as good, only not as fresh. But Green's going to get hurt again in a game or two and we'll be back to Dayne and Gado. YOu think that's a good idea?


Bell is not the answer. Though quick as he may be; fumbles are his best friend.

It seems we have two major issues - an OL that now can't run block (the one thing we had been able to do in years past) and RB's that are either starting the twilight of their career (Green) and/or just plain horrible (Dayne).

IMO finding a decent, not spectacular, RB would seem to be easier than getting the OL issues, personnel and scheme, straightened out.

Runner
10-16-2007, 06:48 AM
Salaam is a starter because injury made it a necessity.

There were other options available immediately when Spencer went down. It was not a necessity that swing tackle Salaam be the starter for a year going on two.

prostock101
10-16-2007, 07:54 AM
The problem with our running game is simple. It doesn't matter if we are zone blocking, power blocking or girl scout blocking, it all comes down to execution on Sunday.

If the eleven guys on the field do not execute their assignments as practiced to perfection, then it doesn't work. Simple.

If they can execute the play in practice, they should be able to do it on Sunday. In the running game, they are not.

Now, let the dogpile commence.........

"Genius since 1952"

Texans_Chick
10-16-2007, 09:15 AM
I mean, you're the hero writer, you probably know a half-dozen backs available for a fairly low price. I'm not saying give up a first day pick (unless, of course, we could get Turner), I'm saying get somebody, anybody, with a little speed and some possibility of spelling Green effectively.

Why is this controversial?

A hero writer? Yeah, my superpower is BS detecting.

I'm just a fan. There's no running backs out there that I think are worth giving up much for. But then again, I am open minded and willing to persuaded. So that's why I asked you who this running back savior would be in week 7.

But if you are bringing in a back this late, one who hasn't practiced with the team, it's hard to think of them making much of an impact, especially with the Texans run blocking and scheme.

Andrew6
10-16-2007, 09:21 AM
I say we give up all of our draft picks next year for the Diet Pepsi machine. He could play offensive line and be a running back. He out ran Reggie Bush in the commercial LOL. :user:

Fox
10-16-2007, 09:52 AM
There were other options available immediately when Spencer went down. It was not a necessity that swing tackle Salaam be the starter for a year going on two.

Completely agree with that.

maddogmrb
10-16-2007, 09:57 AM
I say we go to Costco and pick us up a spare running back. As I said last week, I saw a big muscular guy there who looked pretty fast. You need to pay with cash, check or Amex to shop there, and you also need a membership card.

Tell me your names of all these backs better than Green, and what price you are willing to pay after Game 6 of the season to get a back who hasn't practiced with you.

Personally, I think there are some fundamental issues that the Texans have with their run game other than just the backs. I don't buy the backs, the offensive line, the scheme, or the play calling. I have never been convinced that the Kubiak passing game can work along with the Sherman run game. Show me which regular season game the Texans have had where they work together.

WOW! TC ..... I sense a surprising amount of frustration from you. Remember, back in the offseason (when everyone was calling Rick Smith a genius with his acquisitions) I was commenting that all Rick Smith was doing was signing FA's that nobody else wanted. That's what he should be doing in his sleep. Genius would have been signing one of the high profile FA's when our cap is strapped or making a blockbuster deal. Everything else is just a normal day at the office. I also said that signing below average FA's wasn't going to improve this team ..... just give us more depth of below average talent. I also harped frequently that they needed to be addressing the oline and that Jordon Black WAS NOT a solution. Teams just do not allow quality LT's to walk away like the Chiefs did.

I still believe the team is better overall than last year but we, as fans, need to manage our expectations of this team. We just don't have the talent to be REAL playoff contenders yet.
:fans:

Texans Horror
10-16-2007, 10:06 AM
It's as if everybody expected Ahman to come back on his first week and have a 100+ yarder against one of the stoutest run-defenses in the league. He had a bad day, but I wasn't expecting gems Sunday. He'll do better next week. If he doesn't fair better before the bye-week, the Texans should start to wonder why they are still putting money into his game.

Hervoyel
10-16-2007, 10:08 AM
I'm still coming to terms with how truly spoiled we were with Bruce Mathews, Mike Munchak, and Dean Steinkuhler. I just always expected the offensive line to work because it always did.

When Spencer "comes back" he won't have played a down of football in almost two years. Even with as much potential as the man has/had I still can't imagine this turning out good.

We need a LT badly and I guess this makes the 6th year in a row we've said that.

Porky
10-16-2007, 10:14 AM
Funny...someone emailed me today and asked me what I thought of the team at this juncture and I made an analogy of combining a Chinese buffet with a Mexican restaurant as I mentioned the Sherman man blocking scheme with Kubiak's zone blocking scheme. Two very popular kinds of food but an awful combination.

You've just crushed my dream of opening the El Ranchero China House buffet and exotic boot emporium. My signature dish was going to be sweet and sour Fajitas with Egg Drop Refried Beans on the side. You sure know how to steal a man's dreams don't you. :bat:

Texan_Bill
10-16-2007, 10:50 AM
El Ranchero China House buffet and exotic boot emporium. My signature dish was going to be sweet and sour Fajitas with Egg Drop Refried Beans on the side. :bat:

I'm in...


Signed,
Ron Dayne

Exithios
10-16-2007, 11:09 AM
WOW! TC ..... I sense a surprising amount of frustration from you. Remember, back in the offseason (when everyone was calling Rick Smith a genius with his acquisitions) I was commenting that all Rick Smith was doing was signing FA's that nobody else wanted. That's what he should be doing in his sleep. Genius would have been signing one of the high profile FA's when our cap is strapped or making a blockbuster deal. Everything else is just a normal day at the office. I also said that signing below average FA's wasn't going to improve this team ..... just give us more depth of below average talent. I also harped frequently that they needed to be addressing the oline and that Jordon Black WAS NOT a solution. Teams just do not allow quality LT's to walk away like the Chiefs did.

I still believe the team is better overall than last year but we, as fans, need to manage our expectations of this team. We just don't have the talent to be REAL playoff contenders yet.
:fans:

Now that I am thining with a clear head, I agree with what you are saying.

Depth is the building block for future success and I believe Rick Smith has set us up for long term success. I will not label him our saviour but spending what little money we had in the offseason on 2 high profile players would have prolonged our misery and left us on the bottom end of the mediocrity ranks. Next year we "should" be a playoff contender and the following year we can turn our attention to the big game.

I have said alot of stupid and redundant things during this frustrating 4 game stretch but facts are facts and there isn't enough whool to hide it.

My biggest frustration so far has been our depth at running back. Ahman is a big factor when he is healthy but when injured Dayne nor Gado can carry the load well enough to keep us sane.

Are there running backs in FA that are better than Ahman? No, probably not.

Are there running backs on the market better than Dayne and Gado? Every day and twice on Sunday.

My $0.02

3andOUT
10-16-2007, 11:15 AM
Jeeze. Ahman Green is not going to get it done. He's a good stopgap. Trade for somebody, anybody, tonight. Give away what needs to be given away. If there is a high potential guy available, take a risk.

We have got to have a running back NOW.

Yeah, I know. Best receiver out, 2nd receiver out, other people out, QB "dinged," blah blah.

Comes down to whether you're willing to pay the price to win. If you are, get on the phone and get a RB in here tomorrow.

If you're not, piddle along.

Winning teams are aggressive on and off the field.

You are wrong. It's not Ahman, it's the line. Go back and watch the game again, the line got absolutely no push and created no holes. Ahman can't hit what's not there. McKinney's season ending injury has really hurt the run-blocking and look to see C. White and K. Studdard getting more time (chron.com).

We are going to be in for a long long day on Sunday. Tennessee's front 7 is possibly the best in football. They need to fix whatever is wrong with the line (flanagan)

Vinny
10-16-2007, 11:19 AM
I have said alot of stupid and redundant things during this frustrating 4 game stretch....


don't feel like the lone ranger. Herv and I was talking about why we should avoid posting on game day...its a day of the spewage.

Double Barrel
10-16-2007, 11:58 AM
You've just crushed my dream of opening the El Ranchero China House buffet and exotic boot emporium. My signature dish was going to be sweet and sour Fajitas with Egg Drop Refried Beans on the side. You sure know how to steal a man's dreams don't you. :bat:

I'm in...


Signed,
Ron Dayne

Can I join?

Signed,
Lendale White

Texans_Chick
10-16-2007, 12:11 PM
WOW! TC ..... I sense a surprising amount of frustration from you. Remember, back in the offseason (when everyone was calling Rick Smith a genius with his acquisitions) I was commenting that all Rick Smith was doing was signing FA's that nobody else wanted. That's what he should be doing in his sleep. Genius would have been signing one of the high profile FA's when our cap is strapped or making a blockbuster deal. Everything else is just a normal day at the office. I also said that signing below average FA's wasn't going to improve this team ..... just give us more depth of below average talent. I also harped frequently that they needed to be addressing the oline and that Jordon Black WAS NOT a solution. Teams just do not allow quality LT's to walk away like the Chiefs did.

I still believe the team is better overall than last year but we, as fans, need to manage our expectations of this team. We just don't have the talent to be REAL playoff contenders yet.
:fans:

I'm not particularly frustrated, rather I'm just talking about stuff the way I see it. I recognize that good players don't grow on trees and are particularly hard to acquire when you are in salary cap hades.

I do have some structural concerns with the way our offensive coaching staff is put together, and don't particularly believe in the defensive coaching staff.

Kubiak has a style and philosophy, and Sherman have a style and philosophy and I never really saw how those meshed together.

The QB, tight ends, and receivers seem to have it going on. Most of those elements are taught the Denver way. They have a specific thing they want to do, they run the routes the precise way, and it gets done.

The running back situation has been the lipstick on a pig. They say that the run game is important, but I don't have faith that they can fix it because it has never really been good since Kubiak has come on board. There's been some games here and there where it has been good, but never at the same time as the passing game. The Sherman/Kubiak stuff seems to be either/or.

The Smith defensive philosophy is something that is baffling to me. When he came in, we were told he was going to run an aggressive 4-3. He had never had a track record of running a defense by himself, so you could not see what a Smith type of defense was suppose to look like. And I think the answer is so far inconsistent.

So, yeah, what we see now on the offensive side of the ball is so much better than it was in the past. The run game aspect of it is a problem.

What we see on the defensive side of the ball doesn't give me much comfort that when some more talent comes into place, it will all be good.

Mr. White
10-16-2007, 12:25 PM
We just missed on Michael Bennett again. He went to the Bucs for a 2nd day draft pick.

Specnatz
10-16-2007, 01:26 PM
We just missed on Michael Bennett again. He went to the Bucs for a 2nd day draft pick.

Tampa is desperate for a running back it is not like they or anyone else really went after this guy in the last 3 years. I am not sure we missed on much.

Mr. White
10-16-2007, 02:26 PM
Tampa is desperate for a running back it is not like they or anyone else really went after this guy in the last 3 years. I am not sure we missed on much.

The Texans took a run at him before. There were 20+ pages about it in this thread (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25687&highlight=michael+bennett).

He's not a HOF'er, but he's better than the peanut gallery we have backing up Ahman Green right now.

nunusguy
10-16-2007, 04:40 PM
Kubiak has a style and philosophy, and Sherman have a style and philosophy and I never really saw how those meshed together.

Why was Kubiak hired ? Because he was a successful OC at Denver, or because he's from Houston and/or an Aggie ? If its because he was a success in Denver, why hire someone besides him to run the offense who uses techinques and schemes which are different than Kubiaks.

TexansLucky13
10-16-2007, 04:54 PM
Funny...someone emailed me today and asked me what I thought of the team at this juncture and I made an analogy of combining a Chinese buffet with a Mexican restaurant as I mentioned the Sherman man blocking scheme with Kubiak's zone blocking scheme. Two very popular kinds of food but an awful combination.

I disagree. At lunch time at work, my girl will grab some Ninfa's and I will get some Orange Chicken and rice. We then proceed to mix and grub. It's all good.

Anyways, I agree with your original statement, but not your analogy.

:tease:

Vinny
10-16-2007, 05:06 PM
Anyways, I agree with your original statement, but not your analogy.

:tease:
Asians don't tend to eat cheese...perhaps it's a good thing for you to combine cheese and fish or cheese and stir fry...but it's really not appetizing to me. Mexican and Italian works...but not Asian food and cheese based cuisine.

threetoedpete
10-16-2007, 06:01 PM
I am probably wrong on this, but. There are two schools of thought on ZBS. There is the old school Jimmy Johnson Dallas Cowboy version, the Power Zone. In it you use big guys that block and area, it has been around a long time. (BTW TC knows this but many do not, ZBS only refers to the run blocking). The big guys are also usually good pass blockers due to there size. This is the type blocking system Sherman employs.

Along comes Alex Gibbs and he makes an adjustment to the run game. Go smaller quicker guys, use misdirection, and chop blocking to create backside lanes. The problem with the smaller linemen is they are not as good at pass blocking in the traditional way. Their offense needs play action and role outs to keep the QB alive. Denver is not a good come from behind team, and that is not only because of the lose of Elway.

Kubiak was trained to get an early lead by using play action and role outs to get that 1st half lead, and then going into run the ball to shorten the game mode. The Denver air helps with the wearing down of opponents, BTW Atlanta is the second highest elevation in the league at 1050. The smaller, adjusted to the elevation guys are able to establish the 2nd half running game, and wear the other team out.

IMO you can run both types of running games with the correct guys. Flanagan is not able to run black anymore, and the OC does not want to tell his former college player that. When McKinney was in there (and this kills me to admit) the running game looked good. Without him... Also when did the run game start to click last year? When McKinney took over the center position. He along with Weary and Pitts are an athletic middle with size and strength, that can run both types of ZBS systems.

There's the post of the month. Nice job.

I think it's simply Kubes is not micro managing. We haven't run a true Denver ZBS in awhile. Sherman's responsiblity is the offense and ultimaltly the offensive line. I think they haven't had enough hoses to put sherman's head on the chopping block. Will Say he mised bad on Flanagan's capablities at this age. I disagree with your & vinniy' assement of the og's. I think they are plodders and do a very poor job of blocking on the run. Pitts is bear pulling around and coming on the trap block on the right side. That play also hides Winston's weaknesses. He can play angles on guys and crash in and seal the trash coming from the middle. However, they have all been train wrecks tring to execute bolcks in the open feild. And in particularly on the screen plays.
After watching the whiffs for a third of the season you gotta figgure they can NOT do it. No they aren't athletic enough. One of the little dramas that will take place this off season is which way Kubes takes his offenive line for '08. It begins this Sunday.

And RB Crowd, package all of the '08 picks move up and go get McFaddin. I'll tell you what you will get if you iggnore the o-line one more year. Another patch job and more sputtering and stumbling. A far as spending the '08 draft picks on Turner the burner...deadline is gone. You can get him now for the hundered dollar waiver price.

Vinny
10-16-2007, 06:05 PM
Most people who know what they are talking about will tell you that Pitts and Weary have pretty darn good feet.

threetoedpete
10-16-2007, 06:19 PM
Most people who know what they are talking about will tell you that Pitts and Weary have pretty darn good feet.

The eye in the sky do not lie. Not in the open feild tring to execute blocks. And that there thingy is 25 % of the GB power running game. That is what amen was brought in to do. And our athletic lineman can not do it.

Nighthawk
10-16-2007, 07:31 PM
Are there running backs in FA that are better than Ahman? No, probably not.

Are there running backs on the market better than Dayne and Gado? Every day and twice on Sunday.


Yes, yes, and double yes. This is what I've been trying to say. We need a 2nd string RB better than Gado/Dayne and we need him NOW if we're to have any kind of season at all.

Green is going to go down again. That's why we should have traded today for Somebody Somebody. Tatum Bell, fumble-prone as he may be, is light years ahead of Dayne and Gado. And didn't he play is a system something like ours?

real
10-16-2007, 09:21 PM
The eye in the sky do not lie. Not in the open feild tring to execute blocks. And that there thingy is 25 % of the GB power running game.

The open field or the second level ?

If you're asking your linemen to consistently make blocks in the "open field" that there thingy is called a schematic flaw...

76Texan
10-16-2007, 09:53 PM
I don't think there's a power struggle here.
Unless both Sherman and Kubiak are too polite that they mask something much deeper.
Otherwise, I think they work just fine together.

The result is not there yet. We are not functioning as a cohesive unit in run blocking maybe half of the time, or a third of the time.
But there were other factors that hinder the running game, IMO.

TEs, FBs at times did not do as well they should.
The RBs were hesitant to make the optional cut back when available.
The QB and the RBs are not in tune on the handoff (this has been better).
The coaches' insistence to run right into the meat of the D (at times).
On top of the players getting use to different blocking schemes.

A little here, a little there.
I believe they will get better at it with more reps.

maddogmrb
10-17-2007, 08:48 AM
I'm not particularly frustrated, rather I'm just talking about stuff the way I see it. I recognize that good players don't grow on trees and are particularly hard to acquire when you are in salary cap hades.

I do have some structural concerns with the way our offensive coaching staff is put together, and don't particularly believe in the defensive coaching staff.

Kubiak has a style and philosophy, and Sherman have a style and philosophy and I never really saw how those meshed together.

The QB, tight ends, and receivers seem to have it going on. Most of those elements are taught the Denver way. They have a specific thing they want to do, they run the routes the precise way, and it gets done.

The running back situation has been the lipstick on a pig. They say that the run game is important, but I don't have faith that they can fix it because it has never really been good since Kubiak has come on board. There's been some games here and there where it has been good, but never at the same time as the passing game. The Sherman/Kubiak stuff seems to be either/or.

The Smith defensive philosophy is something that is baffling to me. When he came in, we were told he was going to run an aggressive 4-3. He had never had a track record of running a defense by himself, so you could not see what a Smith type of defense was suppose to look like. And I think the answer is so far inconsistent.

So, yeah, what we see now on the offensive side of the ball is so much better than it was in the past. The run game aspect of it is a problem.

What we see on the defensive side of the ball doesn't give me much comfort that when some more talent comes into place, it will all be good.


Obviously, you are closer to the team than I am and it appears we have multiple problems as follows:

1) Lack of talent in the oline, RB, secondary, and OLB. Surely, this is not also the case for the dline, is it?

2) Coaching that is inconsistent at best. Too me, we are much too passive on both sides of the ball. Our game plans on both sides of the ball appear to be "herky-jerky" with no identity or consistency. I am becoming more and more convinced that Sherman and Richard Smith need to go. Jury is still way out on Kubes, too. Kubes needs to reel in his coaches and establish his philosophies and, if the others don't jump on board, they need to go over board. Kubes is supposed to be an offensive genius and we've seen nothing close to that at all.

3) Rick Smith, the GM. I guess the jury is still out on him, too. But, I guess we should give him another year. Kinda hard to judge him with the inconsistent coaching we have.

nunusguy
10-17-2007, 09:30 AM
Wonder what Marion Barber would be worth to the Texans ? No doubt he's worth a third-rounder, but would that bring him ? Since we don't have a second, we'd have to probably bundle the third with another pick, a second day pick.
Of course this is idle speculation on my part, because I doubt the Cowboys would consider parting with him for anything less than a deal with a fat premium. He was really impressive Sunday though. While the rest of his team was getting their collective butts kicked, he was the kickor. Guy runs hard, and is only 24.

Vinny
10-17-2007, 09:33 AM
Wonder what Marion Barber would be worth to the Texans ? No doubt he's worth a third-rounder, but would that bring him ? Since we don't have a second, we'd have to probably bundle the third with another pick, a second day pick.
Of course this is idle speculation on my part, because I doubt the Cowboys would consider parting with him for anything less than a deal with a fat premium. He was really impressive Sunday though. While the rest of his team was getting their collective butts kicked, he was the kickor. Guy runs hard, and is only 24.

no way the cowboys would trade their best back in a year where they have one of the best shots of any NFC team of making the playoffs....This is a madden video game trade.

Goldensilence
10-17-2007, 01:47 PM
I'm not particularly frustrated, rather I'm just talking about stuff the way I see it. I recognize that good players don't grow on trees and are particularly hard to acquire when you are in salary cap hades.

I do have some structural concerns with the way our offensive coaching staff is put together, and don't particularly believe in the defensive coaching staff.

Kubiak has a style and philosophy, and Sherman have a style and philosophy and I never really saw how those meshed together.

The QB, tight ends, and receivers seem to have it going on. Most of those elements are taught the Denver way. They have a specific thing they want to do, they run the routes the precise way, and it gets done.

The running back situation has been the lipstick on a pig. They say that the run game is important, but I don't have faith that they can fix it because it has never really been good since Kubiak has come on board. There's been some games here and there where it has been good, but never at the same time as the passing game. The Sherman/Kubiak stuff seems to be either/or.

The Smith defensive philosophy is something that is baffling to me. When he came in, we were told he was going to run an aggressive 4-3. He had never had a track record of running a defense by himself, so you could not see what a Smith type of defense was suppose to look like. And I think the answer is so far inconsistent.

So, yeah, what we see now on the offensive side of the ball is so much better than it was in the past. The run game aspect of it is a problem.

What we see on the defensive side of the ball doesn't give me much comfort that when some more talent comes into place, it will all be good.


Post of the month far as i am concerned.

:texflag:

Lucky
10-17-2007, 06:17 PM
Kubiak has a style and philosophy, and Sherman have a style and philosophy and I never really saw how those meshed together.
Without the cut blocks, which the Texans coaches aren't teaching, the Bronco style isn't going to fly here. Instead of the cut block, the Texans try to keep the backside DE honest by running a WR around on a reverse fake. That's not working.

I don't think the Texans would have a chance at a running game without Sherman's power running plays. And the backs they have are more suited to a power style. Until the Texans find the right combination of RBs and linemen to run the Bronco scheme, they should just stick with Sherman's scheme.

I agree that Richard (don't call me Rick) Smith's defensive philosophy is indecipherable. He's from the Glanville coaching tree (more like a twig), so one would think that he's a devotee of the blitz. But, he's rarely drawn up a blitz that catches the opposition off guard. Maybe he doesn't have the talent to fully utilize his scheme (whatever that is), but a good coach takes what he has and makes it work.

Nighthawk
10-17-2007, 07:28 PM
For them as is interested, here's the NFL.COM comparison of Tatum Bell (who we could have had for a song yesterday) and our own top-of-the-line RB, Ahman Green. It's pretty interesting.

This is the link to Tatum Bell on NFL.COM.

http://www.nfl.com/players/tatumbell...e?id=BEL598152

His lowest APC for the last 4 years is 4.1 yds. In 2006 he was the Broncos main RB with over a thousand and an avg of 4.4 or something. Was he hurt or something thereafter?

In any case, if he's "garbage," as Vinny said on the other board, then everybody we got except Green is what? Mulch?

Here are Green's stats if you want to compare.

http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmangree...e?id=GRE035797

Vinny
10-17-2007, 07:30 PM
For them as is interested, here's the NFL.COM comparison of Tatum Bell (who we could have had for a song yesterday) and our own top-of-the-line RB, Ahman Green. It's pretty interesting.

This is the link to Tatum Bell on NFL.COM.

http://www.nfl.com/players/tatumbell...e?id=BEL598152

His lowest APC for the last 4 years is 4.1 yds. In 2006 he was the Broncos main RB with over a thousand and an avg of 4.4 or something. Was he hurt or something thereafter?

In any case, if he's "garbage," as Vinny said on the other board, then everybody we got except Green is what? Mulch?

Here are Green's stats if you want to compare.

http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmangree...e?id=GRE035797

He's a straight line runner with no wiggle...he has a hard time making people miss and there is a reason that the Broncos gave up on him and a reason he was shopped around after the Lions found out that Mike Martz has a tendency to find guys like Trung Candidate and think they are decent backs, only to find out later that they are just fast guys.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
10-17-2007, 07:38 PM
Tatum Bell? lol

That was a joke, right?

maddogmrb
10-17-2007, 07:38 PM
i'll agree with that much.


rick smith is fine. don't you start a complain train and get him kicked out!! don't you do it!!

Lack of attention to oline?

Nighthawk
10-17-2007, 10:29 PM
Tatum Bell? lol

That was a joke, right?

His stats are better than Green's and they aren't some yokel's opinion, they're earned on the field.

My point is not we should have gotten him at all costs, but that he's as good or better than the best back we have, and we could have had him for a song.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
10-17-2007, 10:36 PM
You ever watch Tatum Bell play or are you just one of those stat whores that base their conclusions off of what the numbers say. He is one of the softest runners in the NFL. He's got no wiggle and falls to the ground the second he makes contact with a defender. He sucks, plain and simple.

Nighthawk
10-18-2007, 07:10 AM
You ever watch Tatum Bell play or are you just one of those stat whores that base their conclusions off of what the numbers say. He is one of the softest runners in the NFL. He's got no wiggle and falls to the ground the second he makes contact with a defender. He sucks, plain and simple.

I watched him when he was lighting things up in Denver. If he falls to the ground when touched how come he gets more yards per carry than Green? You can't make a stupid argument like "he's got no wiggle" (duh) when the numbers say he's more productive than your first string guy.

HOU-TEX
10-18-2007, 10:23 AM
You ever watch Tatum Bell play or are you just one of those stat whores that base their conclusions off of what the numbers say. He is one of the softest runners in the NFL. He's got no wiggle and falls to the ground the second he makes contact with a defender. He sucks, plain and simple.

Stat whore....very nice. Not quite as good as an asshat though.:splits:

Brandon420tx
10-18-2007, 10:27 AM
I watched him when he was lighting things up in Denver. If he falls to the ground when touched how come he gets more yards per carry than Green? You can't make a stupid argument like "he's got no wiggle" (duh) when the numbers say he's more productive than your first string guy.

If you only want to base players by their numbers, then reggie bush really was jesus in cleats in college, and now he's a decent slot reciever in the NFL... Stats are easily skewed by a few plays. I wonder how many yards Bell got on 3rd and short situations? If its less then 2 then we already got a back who can get that for us. Besides, the trade deadline is over, so unless the Lions flat out release Bell, its a moot point.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
10-18-2007, 10:45 AM
Yea, Tatum Bell was so great in Denver that they just couldn't wait to replace him and did so with undrafted free agent Mike Bell (who by the way is a fullback now). It is painfully obvious you haven't seen him play or else you wouldn't be here making yourself look like a fool trying to fluff this guy.

Double Barrel
10-18-2007, 10:50 AM
Why mortgage the future to be a .500 team this year? We are building a team, and short-term solutions to long term needs are not how quality teams do it. It will takes years to undo the problems that Casserly & Capers left us with, and it will take time to build depth and have good players everywhere we need them.

dickieb
10-18-2007, 12:18 PM
There is a whole lot more to running the football that just the RB. If you have great enough run blocking you could turn Ron Dayne into a 100 yd per game rusher. A great running game is more based on the fact of having good run blocking a less on the actual talent of the RB - (especially in Denver's case hense the whole plug & play idea at RB). I think that's why Bell was any good in Denver was due to the OL. There are very few special instances where a RB's skills made him great no matter who was blocking, the major one that comes to mind is Barry Sanders. Those type of RB don't come around very often, and if they get injured - there goes your running game. That's why I think it is more important to have great run blocking and you can plug a decent caliber RB in and still have a good day.

Nighthawk
10-19-2007, 01:32 AM
There is a whole lot more to running the football that just the RB. If you have great enough run blocking you could turn Ron Dayne into a 100 yd per game rusher.


i'm guessing some of you guys are the same guys who wanted, in yrs four and five, to "give David a chance to prove himself." Resisting any change, following along and making excuses for ineptitude from coach and GM. Fine with me. And yes, it's a moot point now anyway.

What is not moot is that the team had several chances to get a decent backup RB in here before the trade deadline an elected not to. Twas ever thus.

Silver Oak
10-19-2007, 08:19 AM
Why mortgage the future to be a .500 team this year? We are building a team, and short-term solutions to long term needs are not how quality teams do it. It will takes years to undo the problems that Casserly & Capers left us with, and it will take time to build depth and have good players everywhere we need them.


finally! a post of sound reasoning! :texflag:

Marcus
10-19-2007, 10:31 AM
Why mortgage the future to be a .500 team this year? We are building a team, and short-term solutions to long term needs are not how quality teams do it. It will takes years to undo the problems that Casserly & Capers left us with, and it will take time to build depth and have good players everywhere we need them.

Hey man, don't you get it! I got my fantasy teams to look after, I ain't got time for this "long term, build a team" crap, and I don't care what quality teams do, and I don't care about the future. I want short term fixes NOW. I want to win NOW. Those draft picks mean absolutely nothing to me. If we have to give them all up during the middle of the season to get Tatum Bell in here, then do it, NOW! I want instant results. Just win baby! NOW!

eriadoc
10-19-2007, 11:33 AM
His stats are better than Green's and they aren't some yokel's opinion, they're earned on the field.

My point is not we should have gotten him at all costs, but that he's as good or better than the best back we have, and we could have had him for a song.

There is a stat that would pretty well answer what you need to know - Yards After Contact. I'm not sure if Stats, Inc. tracks it for the NFL; it might be kind of like TFL for college vs. professional. Anyway, if you can find that stat for Tatum Bell vs. Ahman Green, you might be able to ratchet up the conversation. This offense needs a runner who can break arm tackles and get to the second level, because they're not opening holes the size of trucks.

Vinny
10-19-2007, 11:42 AM
i'm guessing some of you guys are the same guys who wanted, in yrs four and five, to "give David a chance to prove himself." Resisting any change, following along and making excuses for ineptitude from coach and GM. Fine with me. And yes, it's a moot point now anyway.

What is not moot is that the team had several chances to get a decent backup RB in here before the trade deadline an elected not to. Twas ever thus.actually some of us watch football and don't just look at stat sheets. I'm sure you still think the great Bob Gagliano got a bum deal after he never got another job once the Lions stopped using the Run-N-Shoot.

STEEL BLUE TEXANS
10-19-2007, 03:23 PM
actually some of us watch football and don't just look at stat sheets. I'm sure you still think the great Bob Gagliano got a bum deal after he never got another job once the Lions stopped using the Run-N-Shoot.



Watch football? Please... Who needs to watch football when I can go to NFL.com to see that Tatum Bell has a higher YPC than Larry Johnson, thus making him a better running back.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=pAs6TDLuKgQ

badboy
10-19-2007, 04:53 PM
I like Tatum Bell. My sister used to date him. Or was that Tater Salad?

Nighthawk
10-19-2007, 09:16 PM
Hey man, I ain't got time for this "long term, build a team" crap, and I don't care what quality teams do, and I don't care about the future. I want short term fixes NOW.

Pal, Bell was available for a 6th rounder. Hardly mortgaging the future. But if it makes you feel better, rage on.

Specnatz
10-19-2007, 10:45 PM
Pal, Bell was available for a 6th rounder. Hardly mortgaging the future. But if it makes you feel better, rage on.

Getting crap for a future 6th round pick is still getting crap for a draft pick. Even it is new crap to the team it is still crap, no matter how you want to espin it.

amazingandre
10-20-2007, 11:18 AM
i think we need a running back bad but we should get one through the draft in the 1st round IMO.....get a guy who has loads of talent and is very quick and strong.....not a big slow back...a one cut go and he hits the hole real fast....with all the talent at the rb position we should be able to get great talent in the middle of round one

dickieb
10-20-2007, 12:31 PM
i think we need a running back bad but we should get one through the draft in the 1st round IMO.....get a guy who has loads of talent and is very quick and strong.....not a big slow back...a one cut go and he hits the hole real fast....with all the talent at the rb position we should be able to get great talent in the middle of round one

Not gonna happen with Kubiak, we won't draft a RB in the first round. With Kubiak and Rick Smith's luck and finding talent in later rounds I dang sure don't want to trade away those picks period, especially for a below average RB back at best. We are already in a hole by not having a second round pick this year, we don't need to lose anymore. I felt like an eternity in the draft between our 1st two picks - it sucked. What's the old saying - don't mortgage the future for the present. I am just glad we didn't give up any picks for Boulware.

Vinny
10-20-2007, 12:48 PM
Not gonna happen with Kubiak, we won't draft a RB in the first round. With Kubiak and Rick Smith's luck and finding talent in later rounds I dang sure don't want to trade away those picks period, especially for a below average RB back at best. We are already in a hole by not having a second round pick this year, we don't need to lose anymore. I felt like an eternity in the draft between our 1st two picks - it sucked. What's the old saying - don't mortgage the future for the present. I am just glad we didn't give up any picks for Boulware.
Kubiak tried to trade up in the first round for DeAngelo Williams so I don't think that argument holds water.