Originally Posted by Wolf
I like DD alot, but as far as triple threat with Carr and AJ.. (no disrespect to DD) but I don't see it. Last but not least a triple threat at RB, He can break one at any time and beat you. I don't see DD having that kinda "speed" to break one at anytime.
The classic example that people think of as a triple threat was Aikman, Irvin and too little, too slow Emmitt Smith. Now Emmitt did have two advantages over DD, an OL that could open holes big enough for something larger than a hummingbird to get through and luck, bone structure, whatever so that he didn't get injured much (although he did miss 1-2 games every other year--every RB no matter how large or how small gets injured).
And on the injury prone comments folks are making--IMO, unless you are looking at consistent injury to the same location indicating a structural weakness then the injury prone label people stick on players that get hit for a living is hooey. Classic example Fragile Fred Taylor who missed a ton of games in his first 4 years and has now gone 2.25 without missing a game. DD has missed time due to a broken hand, ribs, bruised thigh and ankle injuries as a Texan. Maybe if he just laid down on the ground the first time someone hit him like Wells did the 1st year he wouldn't be injury prone.
One more observation on injury and size--the classic example used of who we should have taken, boy wouldn't it have been great, yada yada RB that people wish the Texans had taken is Clinton Portis--he is 16lbs lighter than DD and he missed 7 games due to injury in his 1st two years. Hmmm, maybe the difference between a good RB and a too small, injury prone 3rd down back is a good OL.
By the way, trivia question for the DD isn't big enough, we need a big, full time back crowd--how many RB's in top twenty so far this year are over 230 lbs? OK the suspense would be too much--3. And just 2 more are in between DD's weight and 230. So 75% of the top RB's are DD's size or smaller. The DD is too small argument just doesn't hunt.