View Single Post
Old 06-06-2013   #9
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
 
CloakNNNdagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,296
Rep Power: 242285 CloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respectedCloakNNNdagger is a quality contributor and well respected
Default Re: Ed Reed may miss games now

Quote:
Originally Posted by eriadoc View Post
No, but I can say Ahman Green. And Eric Moulds.
It's somewhat interesting to look back in comparison at this March 2007 TexansTalk post re. Green. He came in with a better historical injury and performance track record prior to the Texans signing him. He certainly was not signed with a significant injury. But then it just didn't work out.

Quote:
The myths of Ahman Green

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Browsing this board and a few of the Chronicle blogs, it seems there are a lot of folks who love to whine for the sake of whining without actually understanding the subject of what they're arguing. So, I figured it'd be good to have a single thread to dismiss most of these lies.

1. Why sign a running back who's injury-prone?

Well, because he's not. He had one leg injury two years ago - other than that, his track record has been one of incredible durability. 16 games, 14 games, 16 games, 16 games, 14 games, 16 games, 15 games, 5 years, and 14 games. You tell me which is the outlier among Green's nine seasons in the league. If anything, durability with Green is a positive, not a negative.

2. He's aging and washed up. A has been.

Do washed up has-beens accumulate almost 1,500 yards from scrimmage on about 300 touches last season? Do they average 4 YPC behind a poor offensive line (probably worse at run blocking than ours) and catch 46 passes at more than 8 YPC? Pop quiz: for all the love Reggie Bush gets for his versatility, who had more combined offensive yards (rushing + receiving) last season for a higher yards per touch - Reggie Bush, or Ahman Green? If you answered the latter, you'd be correct. If Green is a has been based on last season, I guess that makes Bush a never was.

3. Why not Travis Henry?

Because Henry averaged 3.5 YPC in 2004, 3.8 in 2005, and 2.7 in 2006 until VY showed up, when his YPC instantly shot up. Coincidence? I think not. Henry looked poor for three consecutive seasons, until he was able to benefit from the zone read scheme that made linebackers a step slow because they had to account for the possibility of Young faking the handoff and keeping it himself. Second, want to talk injury prone? That label applies to Henry - a guy with multiple nagging injuries - moreso than it does to Green, a durable player with one significant injury his entire career.

4. Running backs at 30 or older never do anything.

I guess someone forgot to tell that to Tiki Barber, who rushed for 1860 and 1662 yards the last two seasons on more than 5 YPC to go with approximately 500 receiving yards. I guess someone forgot to tell that to Warrick Dunn, who rushed for 1416 yards and 1140 yards the last two seasons, at 5 and 4 YPC. I guess someone forgot to tell that to Fred Taylor, who rushed for 1146 yards at 5 YPC last season. While a majority of backs are young, by no means is it a rule or requirement.

5. Why sign a reject that other teams didn't want?

Green Bay tried to re-sign him. Denver tried to sign him. The logic of "why sign so and so because so and so's old team let him go" can be applied to every free agent in the history of free agency. If you believe in that, why pursue anyone other than in the draft? Green had plenty of other suitors, but we offered the deal to get him here and he took it.

6. Why take another Packer or Bronco?

Yeah, I'm sure it's an obsession thing. Or maybe, just maybe, the Texans had a need at RB, and looked at all their options. They wanted someone with a proven track record - how's 6 out of 7 1,000 yard seasons sound? They wanted someone with experience behind a bad offensive line - how's the worst run-blocking OL in the league last season (Green Bay) sound? They wanted someone with experience with the zone blocking scheme - guess what Green Bay runs? They wanted someone with sound character to step up and be a leader - that's one thing Green is known for. They wanted someone to be a receiver out of the backfield - how does 46 catches at more than 8 YPC sound? Along with four seasons of 50 receptions or more? They wanted someone to step in for 2-3 seasons while a back for the future is developed via the draft - how's a 30 year old with about 2-3 really good years left in the tank sound?

Maybe it's not because they're obsessed with Packer running backs. Maybe it's because he's a really good fit. Think about it.

7. Why sign anyone so old? We're not going to contend in the next couple of years.

Yeah! That's the spirit! Don't even try in the next couple of years - that'll help build support for this franchise! Also, remember what happened the last time this team cut veteran leadership (Glenn and Sharper) and the dropoff that ensued when the team was put almost exclusively put in younger hands? Every team needs veteran leadership, particularly at skill positions, to direct the offense and help younger players. It's a vital part of building a team.

8. Why overpay for a 30-year old RB?

Well, first of all, running backs in the top five for the decade with 6 of 7 thousand-yard seasons (including last season) with good receiving skills don't come asking to play for the minimum. Secondly, this is the Houston Texans, not the Indianapolis Colts. This has been one of the worst teams in football for five years now. You think players are begging to play here? You have to pay a premium, change the culture, get some wins, and then potentially reap the rewards. It's a phase of rebuilding - either deal with it, or plan on rebuilding for a whole lot longer.



None of this is to say the signing is perfect - it certainly has its risks. But a few folks sound like they're complaining simply for the sake of complaining, rather than it being sound judgment and reasoning. These responses should answer some of the negativity.
CloakNNNdagger is offline   Reply With Quote