Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com

Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Texans Talk (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
-   -   Domanick Davis 1,000 yards or not (http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5087)

shinerbock_texas 12-13-2004 01:26 PM

Domanick Davis 1,000 yards or not
 
Who believes Domanick Davis will reach 1,000 yards again.
So far this year his numbers are:
ATT 229 YDS 832 TD 10

This leaves him 168 yards shy of 1,000. He can get the 1,000 by averaging 56 per game (or less than he has averaged per game this season 64).

I am really glad Domanick Davis put the fumbling behind him and started running like he was last year. He really seemed to more concerned about fumbles than running.

gwallaia 12-13-2004 01:27 PM

Oh he'll get 1,000 easy.

V Man 12-13-2004 01:32 PM

1000 yard rusher is the most misleading phrases in the NFL. All you have to do is rush for 63 yards a game and you will be a 1000 yard rusher. DD is going to be a 1000 yard rusher this year. But other than the two 100 yard games he had lately, can you say that he has been great this season, or has he been just average.

I think it should be more like 1300 or even 1500 yard rushers as the measuring stick for good backs. But that is just my opinion.

TexansTrueFan 12-13-2004 01:33 PM

he'll surpass his last season total. The fumbles and injuries really hurt him the first half of the season but latley i have seen, the great burst of speed through open holes, the cut backs, and able to get yards after he is hit. Some people had lost faith in Davis i didnt, and i STILL think he is our back of the future ! i say he'll get 1,100 yrds, not bad considering his rough start !

edo783 12-13-2004 01:56 PM

1,000 should be a done deal if he stays healthy and in the games. The "IF" thing is what is worrisome.

Cincinnatikid 12-13-2004 02:21 PM

1000 yards isnt anything in the NFL. Davis has been running better only because he is getting blocking. I think it is similar to Denver, where anyone can get 100 yards for them. Our line is picking up the running scheme so DD can finally get some yards. However, any back in the NFL that is only 5'9" and how many pounds can not be durable (except Barry Sanders) because he cant break the tackles. Once he is hit he goes down, and he doesnt have the swift feet like Sanders. He may be getting some yards, but they need a back that can get the extra yards and give other teams a scare.

El Tejano 12-13-2004 02:56 PM

Well he has scored in every game since the Indy game in Indy. He had a sixty yarder that was called back and everyone said he gets tackled from behind alot. It is just unfortunate that he had the rough start, for him and for the team.

If we get another back in the draft or FA, I still think we keep Wells though. He is a player and is the ultimate teammate.

Blake 12-13-2004 03:00 PM

After years and years of 1,000 yard seasons, you can at least say, he stayed healthy for most of the season, and the coach had enough confidence in him, to give him enough carries. Im looking for DD to finish up with aroun 1200 yards.

profan 12-13-2004 03:06 PM

yes, he will get 1000 yards, but that does not say much. 1000 yards meant a lot more back when the season was 14 games opposed to 16 games.

Fiddy 12-13-2004 03:12 PM

Davis will get 1000 but the bar for NFL RBs nowadays is around 1300 yards IMO...

TheOgre 12-13-2004 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiddy
Davis will get 1000 but the bar for NFL RBs nowadays is around 1300 yards IMO...

Agreed.

1000 yards were big when teams played 12 games in the 60's. For a 16 game schedule, you need at least 1300 yards.

ThaShark316 12-13-2004 03:38 PM

He'll get 1000 Sunday...they play prolly one of the WORST run defenses in the NFL.

Hervoyel 12-13-2004 03:45 PM

Realistically if Davis gets another 300 yards between now and the end of the season will that mean anything? Would 1,132 yards mean that he's "solid" and the position isn't all that big a need going into 2005?

I'm curious because that's only 168 yards away from the 1,300 that has been mentioned here as an approximate minimum for what an NFL back ought to be getting. Considering the lousy start that Davis had this year with his fumbles and the effect that had on him over the first half of the year does that mean we go into the 2005 season starting Davis and expecting big things of him again or will he find some way to stay around the 1,000 yard mark for another season?

Personally I like Davis. I think it's hard not to because he's an exciting player to watch and when he's on you can tell he's busting his tail to get the yards. I don't worry so much about his speed (I think he's a 4.6 40 guy) as I do his durability. Last season I think he had a long of 51 yards against the Bengals and this year his long is 41 with a 60 yarder called back. Speed is wonderful in a back no question about that but backs who aren't burners still find success in this league on a routine basis. It's his ability to play with the bumps and bruises that is cause for concern.

Vinny has mentioned more than one time that when Davis is nicked up he's not the same back and I think that's very true. The problem is that almost every starting back gets nicked up during the season. There's no way around that I'm afraid.

Does anyone think we draft or sign another back for 2005?

Squarenix 12-13-2004 03:59 PM

I think for a back like Davis you shouldn't ignore all the recieving yards he has. Davis has been solid this year, as he already has 1325 total yards. I also think it'd be a mistake to get another back, yards are yards regardless how you get them.

infantrycak 12-13-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincinnatikid
1000 yards isnt anything in the NFL. Davis has been running better only because he is getting blocking. I think it is similar to Denver, where anyone can get 100 yards for them. Our line is picking up the running scheme so DD can finally get some yards.

What games have you been watching? The OL's performance this year has been marginal on one of their better days. DD has undeniably been running much stronger (and more like his style last year) the last few games.

Quote:

However, any back in the NFL that is only 5'9" and how many pounds can not be durable (except Barry Sanders) because he cant break the tackles. Once he is hit he goes down, and he doesnt have the swift feet like Sanders. He may be getting some yards, but they need a back that can get the extra yards and give other teams a scare.
I am not going to go to the work again to show how wrong this size thing is--DD is not an undersized back. Try going through the list of NFL top rushers this year and seeing how many are bigger than DD.

Size (at least once the RB is over 200 lbs) is not a good indicator of an NFL RB's ability or durability.

Signed, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes, Edgerring James, Shaun Alexander, Curtis Martin, Clinton Portis and Ahman Green.

wags 12-13-2004 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hervoyel
Does anyone think we draft or sign another back for 2005?

I hope we don't draft one high(like first round) because I think we have bigger problems. Bad O-line, 30 ranked defense in the NFL, and apparently receivers who can't get open in a cover 2(Carr says they are all covered up).

HJam72 12-13-2004 04:23 PM

I think the answer to the cover 2 next year will be improved pass protection and BENNIE JOPPRU, not to mention better run blocking.

HJam72 12-13-2004 04:26 PM

Ya know, they thought Emmitt Smith was gonna be too small, too, and I have seen DD break tackles on those occasions when is really running with authority. Problem is, he doesn't have many games like that. He was doing it in the preseason.

Cincinnatikid 12-13-2004 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infantrycak
What games have you been watching? The OL's performance this year has been marginal on one of their better days. DD has undeniably been running much stronger (and more like his style last year) the last few games.



I am not going to go to the work again to show how wrong this size thing is--DD is not an undersized back. Try going through the list of NFL top rushers this year and seeing how many are bigger than DD.

Size (at least once the RB is over 200 lbs) is not a good indicator of an NFL RB's ability or durability.

Signed, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes, Edgerring James, Shaun Alexander, Curtis Martin, Clinton Portis and Ahman Green.

Its not simply the size, the problem is that he gets bounced around. He doesnt break tackles very often, and he doesnt have the great side stepping moves. Emmitt Smith could run some guys over, make ankle breakers, and run fast. LaDainian is fast and its hard to get a hand on him cuz of his moves. The same with the others, they can either break some tackles or have better feet than him. He would be a good 3rd down back because he can break a run every once in a while, and he can catch very well out of the backfield. He is not a NFL starter. Look at that list of backs you have, you can add many more, and all of those guys are potential Pro Bowlers, there are many guys that can run very well and be potential Pro Bowlers, and DD is not one. So why should they settle for his medocrity? We have the worst running back in teh division. He is behind the Edge, Fred Taylor, and Chris Brown (a 4th round pick I believe). This team needs a player at running back to make something happen on offense, just like every other successful team in the NFL already has. Look at Pittsburgh for the model for this team. TWO running backs, a potential Pro Bowl QB, good receivers, and an awesome 3-4 defense. That is what this team should be striving for.

wiley2002 12-13-2004 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincinnatikid
Its not simply the size, the problem is that he gets bounced around. He doesnt break tackles very often, and he doesnt have the great side stepping moves. Emmitt Smith could run some guys over, make ankle breakers, and run fast. LaDainian is fast and its hard to get a hand on him cuz of his moves. The same with the others, they can either break some tackles or have better feet than him. He would be a good 3rd down back because he can break a run every once in a while, and he can catch very well out of the backfield. He is not a NFL starter. Look at that list of backs you have, you can add many more, and all of those guys are potential Pro Bowlers, there are many guys that can run very well and be potential Pro Bowlers, and DD is not one. So why should they settle for his medocrity? We have the worst running back in teh division. He is behind the Edge, Fred Taylor, and Chris Brown (a 4th round pick I believe). This team needs a player at running back to make something happen on offense, just like every other successful team in the NFL already has. Look at Pittsburgh for the model for this team. TWO running backs, a potential Pro Bowl QB, good receivers, and an awesome 3-4 defense. That is what this team should be striving for.


Boy some people don't know when to do a little more research. Going back to what you said on RBs, DD is fine. We just need some people on the o-line to block a little more up field. Even AJ has gotten involved up field holding off the secondary which has been a big part of some of DD's best runs. Plus you have to understand that the Steelers have been in the league A LOT longer than the Texans. We will be like them one day. You just have to be patient.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management by RedTyger