View Single Post
Old 02-15-2013   #28
Vinny
shiny happy fan
 
Vinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 50
Posts: 21,802
Rep Power: 154151 Vinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respectedVinny is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: The Cost Of James Casey

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman View Post
No reason you shouldn't. Casey personally had a better year catching the ball than Leach ever did, and the running game overall had more yards/TD's than in any of Leach's five years starting at FB.

What exactly did he not give this team that Leach did? And if the answer is goal line presence, before Foster came along in Leach's last year, this team had 12-15 rushing TD's a year. They were either not getting the opportunity, in which case it is a moot point, or they were not taking advantage of it, which means we have romanticized the contributions that Leach provided.

If we judge Casey's performance as a FB, and not try to wrap logic around he is a FB but should play like a TE, then Casey gave a better performance this year stats-wise than the year that Leach cashed in on as a free agent.

And people were cutting their wrists over Leach leaving...
Leach left, running game degrades as the games go by. What is more important than a top running game to the Kubiak offense? Nothing. Casey makes a few catches but really doesn't do much....Casey is the one being romanticized.
__________________
http://twitter.com/#!/TexansTalk


"A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves" - Edward R. Murrow
Vinny is offline   Reply With Quote