PDA

View Full Version : Running back or Reciever.


TexansTrueFan
05-24-2005, 04:40 PM
Which do you think would help the texans have a better chance to win, consistent 100 yards rushing every game, or consistent 250-300 yards passing. Now i know the running game opens up the passing game and some would say the passing game opens up the running game. But thats not what i'm wanting to know. BETTER SHOT OF WINNING RUSHING ATTACK OR PASSING ATTACK.

jr0ck
05-24-2005, 04:45 PM
i think +3 in the turnover column is the stat that contributes the most to a victory...so neither :heh:

TexansTrueFan
05-24-2005, 05:05 PM
i think +3 in the turnover column is the stat that contirbutes the most to a victory...so neither :heh:


well yeah that helps, thanks for not answering my question but hey atleast ya went up in the post column :goodnight

maddsouth
05-24-2005, 05:41 PM
I think the running game is more important, a running game is what establishes the passing game and also keeps the clock moving in late games when your trying to run the clock....plus a running game lessens the chances of a turnover

TexansTrueFan
05-24-2005, 06:06 PM
I think the running game is more important, a running game is what establishes the passing game and also keeps the clock moving in late games when your trying to run the clock....plus a running game lessens the chances of a turnover


i bet u werent thinking that after the first 2 games the texans played, poor D.D !

jags98
05-24-2005, 06:21 PM
A good runner can make any team a contender. Look at Ricky back in 2003 when AJ Feely and Jay Fielder were the QBs, but still got to a 9-7(maybe 10-6) record.

Texas_Thrill
05-24-2005, 06:54 PM
I'm old school to the core. Run it Run it again Run it some more....then throw da bombbbb.

Theoridic
05-24-2005, 08:17 PM
I love a consistent running game, but in order to win against teams like the colts and rams we need to have a passing attack that will get us at least 300 yards. The team does have the receivers to do this with, lets just hope we have the line.

BornOrange
05-24-2005, 09:59 PM
in order to win against teams like the colts and rams we need to have a passing attack that will get us at least 300 yards.

In beating the Colts in the playoffs Tom Brady only threw for 144 yards while the Patriots ran for 210 yards. Meanwhile, Manning threw for 238 yards but the Colts only ran for 46 yards. Patriots 20, Colts 3.

A good running game will chew up the clock and keep the ball out of Manning's hands so he can't score lots of points. Even though Davis has had a couple of 1000 yard seasons, the Texans really haven't had a good running game yet because they haven't been able to run the ball effectively at the end of the game to maintain a lead. Remember the end of the 2003 season when the Colts and Titans were able to come back and win games late? The Texans lost those games because they couldn't run the ball effectively when they needed to run time off the clock.

A good running game is one that can get first downs late in the game by running on first, second, and third down (and even fourth if necessary) with everyone in the building knowing that they are going to run the ball.

thetexanator
05-24-2005, 10:49 PM
nothing sexier than a high powered passing game. however, the big stud running back is the way to go, but that only works with a good d. oh and a good line. this offense needs help! :brickwall

BornOrange
05-24-2005, 10:52 PM
A big stud running back makes the offensive line look better than it is because he can break tackles at the line of scrimmage.

He also makes his defense look better than it is because he helps it stay off the field.

He also makes his quarterback look better than he is because safeties are worried about the run and not the pass.

jr0ck
05-24-2005, 11:04 PM
well yeah that helps, thanks for not answering my question but hey atleast ya went up in the post column

i SIR am no a post whore! since i have been thus accused, i will reply to your original post with one of the two choices you offered.

running game without a question. for the same reasons i love a tough defense are the same reasons i love an effective ground game. there are few things more impressive than one team physically dominating another team. no bells and whistles, strings attached, or "gotcha" crap, just plain old fashioned domination. also eats the clock, is demoralizing (for reasons mentioned above) and epitomizes what football is about IMO.

GOOD DAY to you!

thetexanator
05-24-2005, 11:05 PM
so its agreed, davis is good, but he doesnt give us enough of those things.

outofhnd
05-25-2005, 04:29 AM
Thats tough to say he has never played a full season. They Changed the blocking scheme, & He needs to stay healthy and then we can say he does or doesnt give us enough of these things.

Personally I like a Bruising bettis type of runner more than any other back. A RB thats constantly not only wearing you out, but he is also getting in your head, and hes punishing your body.

If the power running game can get to the 2nd and 3rd level consistently no way can the secondary really be at the top of their game for a consistent air attack.

SO yeah RB way more important, look at the draft if you want more proof.

Morency rd 2, Mathis rd 4, speaks for itself.

Theoridic
05-25-2005, 07:53 AM
I think that Texans are conservative enough when it comes to them trying to run. Use the speed and power of our receivers to air it out some more. Obviously they don't want a power back. look at DD, Hollings, and Morency they are quick through the gap not head on. None of them are ever going to be confused with Earl.

Remember the end of the 2003 season when the Colts and Titans were able to come back and win games late? The Texans lost those games because they couldn't run the ball effectively when they needed to run time off the clock.

They lost those cause of horrible play calling and thinking we can settle in for the win. The Greenbay game anyone remember that fiasco. Texans were up then second half was run,run,run, and punt. Then go figure Farve figures out the defense and they are done. I agree that a good running game is a neccesity. Texans have a descent running game.(1,000 yards 2 seasons in a row while being injured) Its time to work on the passing game.

ATX
05-25-2005, 01:04 PM
100 yard plus running and 300 yard passing performances will soon be a norm for the houston texans. but i agree that our running game needs to be consistent and also needs to be able to run 1-3 yards on a third down to pick up a first. our offensive numbers have improved every year and i don't see why it wouldn't improve this season as well.

Huge
05-25-2005, 01:37 PM
Top 5 rushing teams from last year:
Atlanta - 11-5
Pittsburgh - 15-1
Jets - 10-6
Denver - 10-6
Kansas City - 7-9

Top 5 passing teams from last year:
Indianapolis - 12-4
Minnesota - 8-8
Green Bay - 10-6
Kansas City - 7-9
St. Louis - 8-8

I'd have to go with the rushing.

El Tejano
05-25-2005, 01:45 PM
I think that Texans are conservative enough when it comes to them trying to run. Use the speed and power of our receivers to air it out some more. Obviously they don't want a power back. look at DD, Hollings, and Morency they are quick through the gap not head on. None of them are ever going to be confused with Earl.



They lost those cause of horrible play calling and thinking we can settle in for the win. The Greenbay game anyone remember that fiasco. Texans were up then second half was run,run,run, and punt. Then go figure Farve figures out the defense and they are done. I agree that a good running game is a neccesity. Texans have a descent running game.(1,000 yards 2 seasons in a row while being injured) Its time to work on the passing game.
I think you just answered the reason of what makes a good running game. Earlier he mentioned that a good running game is one that you can run out the clock when everyone in the building knows you are going to run the ball. If the Texans have that kind of running game, we win.

dalemurphy
05-25-2005, 02:22 PM
Which do you think would help the texans have a better chance to win, consistent 100 yards rushing every game, or consistent 250-300 yards passing. Now i know the running game opens up the passing game and some would say the passing game opens up the running game. But thats not what i'm wanting to know. BETTER SHOT OF WINNING RUSHING ATTACK OR PASSING ATTACK.

If we have consistantly large rushing totals it's indicative of the fact that we aren't playing from behind. Therefore, if I had to choose one over the other, I'd like to see us with 100yds+ rushing every week.

Notice on primetime on ESPN when they run down the 300 yard passers, usually the vast majority of them are losing efforts.

wrestler4life
05-25-2005, 02:59 PM
I coach HS Football in So. Cal., and we are really known for producing great QB's and receivers. But MY team had a great running game and a good D, and we destroyed the teams with really good aerial attacks. I realize we are not the NFL, but it is just a similar comparison

throwANDREtheBALL
05-25-2005, 03:38 PM
A great running game will get you no where if you have a bad Defense

AND

A great passing game won't get you too far, if you have a bad Defense


First you need a good Defense, if you have that, then I believe that a great running game would compliment it the best.

If your Defense is the worst in the league, then you'd better have the best passing attack, or you'll never keep up.

So it all depends on your defense.

Personally, I prefer a balanced attack anyways.

Meloy
05-25-2005, 04:19 PM
Just thought I add to this mish mash. Oilers had great runner in Campbell and then with Moon and all the "smurfs" we had passing yards out the ying yang. Didn't get far with either. Personally, I like the combination we see with Texans now. Johnson a thousand + and DD thousand + for 2005. My 2 cents only.

DBLR1
05-25-2005, 04:41 PM
In beating the Colts in the playoffs Tom Brady only threw for 144 yards while the Patriots ran for 210 yards. Meanwhile, Manning threw for 238 yards but the Colts only ran for 46 yards. Patriots 20, Colts 3.

A good running game will chew up the clock and keep the ball out of Manning's hands so he can't score lots of points. Even though Davis has had a couple of 1000 yard seasons, the Texans really haven't had a good running game yet because they haven't been able to run the ball effectively at the end of the game to maintain a lead. Remember the end of the 2003 season when the Colts and Titans were able to come back and win games late? The Texans lost those games because they couldn't run the ball effectively when they needed to run time off the clock.

A good running game is one that can get first downs late in the game by running on first, second, and third down (and even fourth if necessary) with everyone in the building knowing that they are going to run the ball.
You just saved me some typing! Bingo :highfive:

TexansTrueFan
05-25-2005, 05:40 PM
i SIR am no a post whore! since i have been thus accused, i will reply to your original post with one of the two choices you offered.

running game without a question. for the same reasons i love a tough defense are the same reasons i love an effective ground game. there are few things more impressive than one team physically dominating another team. no bells and whistles, strings attached, or "gotcha" crap, just plain old fashioned domination. also eats the clock, is demoralizing (for reasons mentioned above) and epitomizes what football is about IMO.

GOOD DAY to you!


haha i was playing, but i do like responses, thanks. I feel a running game is better, cause u run out clock and keep ur D off the field, with a good passing game u get into shoot outs, cause ur D gets worn down early and often.

Porky
05-25-2005, 05:55 PM
Here's the way I look at it. A great passing game scores points, but a great running game wins games. If you strive to be a great team, you need both elements working.

TexansTrueFan
05-25-2005, 06:02 PM
and defenses win championships. thats why indy can never make it to the big game.

BornOrange
05-25-2005, 08:55 PM
Just thought I add to this mish mash. Oilers had great runner in Campbell and then with Moon and all the "smurfs" we had passing yards out the ying yang. Didn't get far with either. Personally, I like the combination we see with Texans now. Johnson a thousand + and DD thousand + for 2005. My 2 cents only.
The Oilers of the late 70's were a pretty average team with a great running back. They went to two conference championship games and lost to maybe the greatest team of all team in the Pittsburgh Steelers both times. The Oilers were probably the second best team in the NFL in 1979.

The Oilers in their run-and-shoot days were probably the most talented team in the NFL and maybe the most talented team in NFL history to never get to a Super Bowl. They didn't even get to a conference championship game and didn't have a great team keeping them from the Super Bowl. Those run-and-shoot Oilers set a record in blowing a 35-3 second half lead.

A great runner raised a mediocre team in the late 70's to great heights.

The lack of a strong running game kept a great team in the late 80's and early 90's from achieving what it was capable of.

Jwwillis
05-25-2005, 09:11 PM
Tom Landray once said after one of the Oilers rare wins over the Cowboys during the Campbell era. " The Oilers didn't beat us today, Earl Campbell did." He HATED losing to the likes of a character like Bum Phillips. One of my most charished memories.

ojthecat
05-25-2005, 09:11 PM
It is not running back or reciever. To be one of the best you have to have at LEAST a good to great QB, a good to great RB, a good to great WR and a very good TE or second WR. :drool:

Mr Shush
05-26-2005, 07:12 AM
In the modern NFL, the pass is a more effective form of offense than the run.

But . . .

A good passing game requires quality play from a minimum of eight offensive players (QB, O-line and two receivers of one kind or another).

A good running game requires quality play from three players (RB, RT, RG).

Moreover, many of the positions essential to the passing game are the ones where there really is stark ability-differential at the very top end, which means that these positions are the ones which, along with CB, demand most money (QB, WR, LT).

This means that a good passing attack will eat all your cap space, preventing you from spending on defense, whereas a good running attack comes relatively cheap.

There is a further bias towards passing-game players being overpayed which stems from the preference of most (and especially most casual) football fans' preference for high-octane, big-score football. Teams will therefore be more popular, and hence more profitable, if they play a downfield passing offense, which is one reason why the teams that do so are often the small market franchises that really need the cash (see Indianapolis).

throwANDREtheBALL
05-26-2005, 02:46 PM
OK but, other than INDY who else should I see ?

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:00 PM
i SIR am no a post whore!
GOOD DAY to you!

I am not a post whore either! texanpride

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:01 PM
In the modern NFL, the pass is a more effective form of offense than the run.

OK? So? Go on.

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:02 PM
A good passing game requires quality play from a minimum of eight offensive players (QB, O-line and two receivers of one kind or another).

A good running game requires quality play from three players (RB, RT, RG).



I think that's a good point.

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:03 PM
Moreover, many of the positions essential to the passing game are the ones where there really is stark ability-differential at the very top end, which means that these positions are the ones which, along with CB, demand most money (QB, WR, LT).

This means that a good passing attack will eat all your cap space, preventing you from spending on defense, whereas a good running attack comes relatively cheap.



I think that's a good point too.

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:04 PM
There is a further bias towards passing-game players being overpayed which stems from the preference of most (and especially most casual) football fans' preference for high-octane, big-score football. Teams will therefore be more popular, and hence more profitable, if they play a downfield passing offense, which is one reason why the teams that do so are often the small market franchises that really need the cash (see Indianapolis).


You lost me on that one. :ouch:

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:05 PM
But most important, I am not a post whore. :)

GOOD DAY to you!

HJam72
05-26-2005, 06:13 PM
But sometimes I do accidentally spill my beer on people at football games...

It jumped right outta my hand!







: idonno:



:bag:

ojthecat
05-26-2005, 06:19 PM
But sometimes I do accidentally spill my beer on people at football games...

It jumped right outta my hand!
:bag:

That gets expensive real fast :crying:

ATX
05-26-2005, 11:44 PM
right, each spill is like 50 cents down the drain. but anyway, i have to somewhat disagree about needing 8 quality players to pass and only 3 to run. bottom line is you need a good Oline to do both. if the left side of the line sucks, the running game will go nowhere. you can't just run right on every running play. and what about the fullback, i'd say having a good blocking FB does wonders to a running game. i guess all i'm getting at is its not just 3 guys needed to run the ball. look at denver, they have a great running game and not the best running backs. its about the whole Oline, not just the RG and RT. one could even argue having 2 quality guards are better than a quality RG and RT. but then again it depends what kind of running game you're running, do you run hard between the tackles or pull your guards alot.