Go Back   Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com > The Great Fans of the Houston Texans > Texans Talk
Home Forums Register FAQDonate Automatic Monthly Contribution Members List Mark Forums Read


Texans Talk Football talk only please. Keep it to the game, the players, the coaches and management.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2006   #1
trane
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 45
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 9 trane is ridin' the pine
Default DD vs AFC Running Backs

In a previous thread, there was discussion of wheter Domanick Davis was "great" a RB. I thought that he was only a "good" RB and would never even make the Pro Bowl. However, after analyzing the collection of RB's in the AFC...it would not totally be unrealistic for DD to make the Pro Bowl. Providing he stays healthy and put ups good stats in the new system. Now that Edge James is in AZ, the undisputed best back in the AFC is LaDanian. After that, the debate can begin...who is the next best RB in the AFC?
trane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #2
Nawzer
Alienz
 
Nawzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 32
Posts: 6,576
Rep Power: 26584 Nawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

1. LT
2. Larry Johnson
3. Rudi Johnson
4. Domanick Davis
5. Fred Taylor (When healthy)

That's my top 5. I think with an injury free season DD can certainly become an elite back. But till then he's just a good back.
__________________
Fortune favors the brave NOT the stupid!
Nawzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #3
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

#2: Larry Johnson

DD #4 ???

What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #4
the wonger need food
Hall of Fame
 
the wonger need food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston
Age: 45
Posts: 2,562
Rep Power: 1340 the wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respectedthe wonger need food is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

LaDainian and L. Johnson are top tier. After that the second tier would probably include Domanick, Rudi Johnson, Willie Parker, Curtis Martin, maybe Tatum Bell. There's a big dropoff after the top two guys.

You're right though, Domanick definitely has a shot at the Pro Bowl this year if he can stay healthy.
the wonger need food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #5
DocBar
Hall of Fame
 
DocBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I'm international
Section: Channel 700-ish on NFL Sunday Ticket
Age: 44
Posts: 9,688
Rep Power: 100454 DocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

I would think McGahee would make the list. He showed some flashes last year and is recovering nicely from his knee injury. As was said earlier, there isn't a ton of talent in the AFC at RB. I think DD can be in the upper eschalon if he can stay healthy or learn to play through an injury. Pro Bowl is definitely there for him.
__________________
“Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. But it isn’t science.”
— Halton Arp
DocBar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #6
Nawzer
Alienz
 
Nawzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Age: 32
Posts: 6,576
Rep Power: 26584 Nawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respectedNawzer is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtruroyaltyx
#2: Larry Johnson

DD #4 ???

What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...
Jamal Lewis had a bad year compared to his standards and Mike Anderson had a good year last year with the Broncos but who doesn't? McGahee is in the same boat as DD I think. When healthy they can be devastating.
__________________
Fortune favors the brave NOT the stupid!
Nawzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #7
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawzer
Jamal Lewis had a bad year compared to his standards and Mike Anderson had a good year last year with the Broncos but who doesn't? McGahee is in the same boat as DD I think. When healthy they can be devastating.
IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
Old 07-06-2006   #8
DocBar
Hall of Fame
 
DocBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I'm international
Section: Channel 700-ish on NFL Sunday Ticket
Age: 44
Posts: 9,688
Rep Power: 100454 DocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtruroyaltyx
IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...
I'm not sure how you "rate" talent w/o looking at stats. I'm not being a smart*ss, but I just don't get it. Do you look at times in the 40? How they do in practice? The team around them? Are you judging the ability to see the field and change direction on a dime or break an arm tackle? I just don't see how you can judge talent without stats weighing heavily in the equation. Maybe this makes me stupid. Like I said, I'm asking because I want to know. I'm not trash talking.
__________________
“Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. But it isn’t science.”
— Halton Arp
DocBar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #9
thunderkyss 
& so it begins
 
thunderkyss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Texas
Age: 42
Posts: 35,610
Rep Power: 286048 thunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respectedthunderkyss is a quality contributor and well respected
Send a message via Yahoo to thunderkyss
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xtruroyaltyx
IMO, Where a lot of people get off track/disagree at is ....Some are going off of Stats while others (myslef included) are going off of talent...If the question were which RB do you think has the ability to make the pro-bow/ put up better stats....DD would probably make my top four....But since it's a question of who do I think is better...DD would rank somewhere around 6-8 range...JMO...

and this is why people like you may(I said may) rate Michael Bennet as a better runningback than DD..... true, he may have more speed..... breakaway speed, which DD flat out does not have........ but I'd start DD over Bennett any day.

But I have no doubt that DD can find himself in the ProBowl, if Kubiak can get our offensive line to do for him, what the Bronco offensive line has done for Portis, Anderson, Gary, TD, Droughns, etc.... none whatsoever.
__________________
thunderkyss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #10
trane
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 45
Posts: 81
Rep Power: 9 trane is ridin' the pine
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBar
I'm not sure how you "rate" talent w/o looking at stats. I'm not being a smart*ss, but I just don't get it. Do you look at times in the 40? How they do in practice? The team around them? Are you judging the ability to see the field and change direction on a dime or break an arm tackle? I just don't see how you can judge talent without stats weighing heavily in the equation. Maybe this makes me stupid. Like I said, I'm asking because I want to know. I'm not trash talking.
I think stats are a starting point but they don't tell the whole story. For example, if it takes a back 30 carries to get a hundred yards...I'm not impressed. Then you have some backs may not rush for a lot of yards but may have a lot of receiving yards which is effective also. IMO, a good back is measured best by how many plays they make when the ball is in their hands.
trane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #11
HOU-TEX 
Ah, Football!
 
HOU-TEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: P-land
Age: 44
Posts: 15,717
Rep Power: 143421 HOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBar
I would think McGahee would make the list. He showed some flashes last year and is recovering nicely from his knee injury. As was said earlier, there isn't a ton of talent in the AFC at RB. I think DD can be in the upper eschalon if he can stay healthy or learn to play through an injury. Pro Bowl is definitely there for him.
From what I've seen so far this offseason, I just don't see it happening. I mean if his knee really did swell up during run throughs, then I don't see how he's going to be ready for TC., pre-season, maybe even the opener. Maybe I'm mistaken, but doesn't he need to build the strength back in his knee?
__________________
Kubiak: "They’re battling their tail off." Translation: They suck.
OB: "They played hard with great effort." Translation: They suck.
HOU-TEX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #12
TexansTrueFan
Hall of Fame
 
TexansTrueFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Huntsville Tx
Age: 29
Posts: 2,600
Rep Power: 13 TexansTrueFan is a team player
Send a message via Yahoo to TexansTrueFan
Default

D.D overall is a top 10 back in my opinion, as far as talent goes. i mean think of the godly numbers he woulda put up IF not for injuries, and look at the line he has ran behind. If he was with the colts like james last year, he woulds prolly had less injuries and way better numbers. You think manning would be as good behind the texans O-Line, no and only reason carr is descent behind it is cause he is a very mobile QB. If we have a "OK" line this year i see Davis having a pro bowl year. I mean obviously the Front office sees something most of you dont, cause they did pass on Bush.
TexansTrueFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #13
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderkyss
and this is why people like you may(I said may) rate Michael Bennet as a better runningback than DD..... true, he may have more speed..... breakaway speed, which DD flat out does not have........ but I'd start DD over Bennett any day.

But I have no doubt that DD can find himself in the ProBowl, if Kubiak can get our offensive line to do for him, what the Bronco offensive line has done for Portis, Anderson, Gary, TD, Droughns, etc.... none whatsoever.
Hmmm...thats an interesting debate...one perhaps the only solution can be to agree to disagree...but lets not bring bennet into the discussion because it is widely known that he isn't a great, dominant or game changing back...He is mediocre...If you are trying to put DD in the ranks of the better backs in the leauge then we should use them as examples to compare him to...And IMO, I would rather start Bennett because he has big play ability + he can do what DD can do....but faster.....But anywho...the fact that there would even be a debate between DD and Bennett should be point enough to show what level DD is on...There wouldn't be a debate with some of the better backs in the leauge....

Last edited by real; 07-06-2006 at 03:02 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #14
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexansTrueFan
D.D overall is a top 10 back in my opinion, as far as talent goes. i mean think of the godly numbers he woulda put up IF not for injuries, and look at the line he has ran behind. If he was with the colts like james last year, he woulds prolly had less injuries and way better numbers. You think manning would be as good behind the texans O-Line, no and only reason carr is descent behind it is cause he is a very mobile QB. If we have a "OK" line this year i see Davis having a pro bowl year. I mean obviously the Front office sees something most of you dont, cause they did pass on Bush.
Totally respect your opinion..but disagree with every point you made...
Question: Do you think that because our line was a bad PASS blocking line that automatically makes us poor RUN blockers? Our run blocking has never been a problem...
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #15
DocBar
Hall of Fame
 
DocBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: I'm international
Section: Channel 700-ish on NFL Sunday Ticket
Age: 44
Posts: 9,688
Rep Power: 100454 DocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respectedDocBar is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trane
I think stats are a starting point but they don't tell the whole story. For example, if it takes a back 30 carries to get a hundred yards...I'm not impressed. Then you have some backs may not rush for a lot of yards but may have a lot of receiving yards which is effective also. IMO, a good back is measured best by how many plays they make when the ball is in their hands.
Isn't all that reflected in stats? Obviously, 100yds on 20 carries is much better than on 30. And receptions is also a trackable stat to reflect the talent of the back. Maybe the talent thing is a reflection of how much a back does per touch rather than just looking at over-all stats. IE Barry Sanders Vs. Emmitt Smith.
Barry Sanders:


Year Team Rushing Receiving
G No. Yds. Avg. TD No. Yds. Avg. TD F
1989 Detroit 15 280 1470 5.3 14 24 282 11.8 0 10
1990 Detroit 16 255 1304 5.1 13 36 480 13.3 3 4
1991 Detroit 15 342 1548 4.5 16 41 307 7.5 1 5
1992 Detroit 16 312 1352 4.3 9 29 225 7.8 1 6
1993 Detroit 11 243 1115 4.6 3 36 205 5.7 0 3
1994 Detroit 16 331 1883 5.7 7 44 283 6.4 1 0
1995 Detroit 16 314 1500 4.8 11 48 398 8.3 1 3
1996 Detroit 16 307 1553 5.1 11 24 147 6.1 0 4
1997 Detroit 16 335 2053 6.1 11 33 305 9.2 3 3
1998 Detroit 16 343 1491 4.3 4 37 289 7.8 0 3
Career Total 153 3062 15,269 5.0 99 352 2921 8.3 10 41
Additional Career Statistics: Passing: 4-1-11, 1 INT; Kickoff Returns: 5-118
Emmitt Smith:
Year Team G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 241 937 3.9 48 11 4 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 365 1563 4.3 75 12 7 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 373 1713 4.6 68 18 10 91
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 283 1486 5.3 62 9 11 74
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 368 1484 4.0 46 21 7 101
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 377 1773 4.7 60 25 10 107
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 327 1204 3.7 42 12 3 75
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 261 1074 4.1 44 4 5 47
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 319 1332 4.2 32 13 8 89
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 329 1397 4.2 63 11 10 85
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 294 1203 4.1 52 9 6 65
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 261 1021 3.9 44 3 7 47
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 254 975 3.8 30 5 5 48
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 90 256 2.8 22 2 1 15
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 267 937 3.5 29 9 4 41
TOTAL 226 219 4409 18355 4.2 75 164 98 885
Recieving: G GS Rec Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 24 228 9.5 57 0 3 2 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 49 258 5.3 14 1 0 0 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 59 335 5.7 26 1 3 0 12
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 57 414 7.3 86 1 2 1 13
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 50 341 6.8 68 1 3 1 12
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 62 375 6.0 40 0 2 1 14
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 47 249 5.3 21 3 1 0 12
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 40 234 5.9 24 0 2 0 6
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 27 175 6.5 24 2 1 0 8
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 27 119 4.4 14 2 0 0 4
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 11 79 7.2 19 0 0 0 2
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 17 116 6.8 22 0 1 0 6
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 16 89 5.6 17 0 0 0 4
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 14 107 7.6 36 0 1 0 4
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 15 105 7.0 18 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 226 219 515 3224 6.3 86 11 19 5 100




Who would you consider the more talented back?
__________________
“Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. But it isn’t science.”
— Halton Arp
DocBar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #16
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocBar
Isn't all that reflected in stats? Obviously, 100yds on 20 carries is much better than on 30. And receptions is also a trackable stat to reflect the talent of the back. Maybe the talent thing is a reflection of how much a back does per touch rather than just looking at over-all stats. IE Barry Sanders Vs. Emmitt Smith.
Barry Sanders:


Year Team Rushing Receiving
G No. Yds. Avg. TD No. Yds. Avg. TD F
1989 Detroit 15 280 1470 5.3 14 24 282 11.8 0 10
1990 Detroit 16 255 1304 5.1 13 36 480 13.3 3 4
1991 Detroit 15 342 1548 4.5 16 41 307 7.5 1 5
1992 Detroit 16 312 1352 4.3 9 29 225 7.8 1 6
1993 Detroit 11 243 1115 4.6 3 36 205 5.7 0 3
1994 Detroit 16 331 1883 5.7 7 44 283 6.4 1 0
1995 Detroit 16 314 1500 4.8 11 48 398 8.3 1 3
1996 Detroit 16 307 1553 5.1 11 24 147 6.1 0 4
1997 Detroit 16 335 2053 6.1 11 33 305 9.2 3 3
1998 Detroit 16 343 1491 4.3 4 37 289 7.8 0 3
Career Total 153 3062 15,269 5.0 99 352 2921 8.3 10 41
Additional Career Statistics: Passing: 4-1-11, 1 INT; Kickoff Returns: 5-118
Emmitt Smith:
Year Team G GS Att Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 241 937 3.9 48 11 4 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 365 1563 4.3 75 12 7 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 373 1713 4.6 68 18 10 91
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 283 1486 5.3 62 9 11 74
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 368 1484 4.0 46 21 7 101
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 377 1773 4.7 60 25 10 107
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 327 1204 3.7 42 12 3 75
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 261 1074 4.1 44 4 5 47
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 319 1332 4.2 32 13 8 89
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 329 1397 4.2 63 11 10 85
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 294 1203 4.1 52 9 6 65
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 261 1021 3.9 44 3 7 47
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 254 975 3.8 30 5 5 48
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 90 256 2.8 22 2 1 15
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 267 937 3.5 29 9 4 41
TOTAL 226 219 4409 18355 4.2 75 164 98 885
Recieving: G GS Rec Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ FD
1990 Dallas Cowboys 16 15 24 228 9.5 57 0 3 2 0
1991 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 49 258 5.3 14 1 0 0 0
1992 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 59 335 5.7 26 1 3 0 12
1993 Dallas Cowboys 14 13 57 414 7.3 86 1 2 1 13
1994 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 50 341 6.8 68 1 3 1 12
1995 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 62 375 6.0 40 0 2 1 14
1996 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 47 249 5.3 21 3 1 0 12
1997 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 40 234 5.9 24 0 2 0 6
1998 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 27 175 6.5 24 2 1 0 8
1999 Dallas Cowboys 15 15 27 119 4.4 14 2 0 0 4
2000 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 11 79 7.2 19 0 0 0 2
2001 Dallas Cowboys 14 14 17 116 6.8 22 0 1 0 6
2002 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 16 89 5.6 17 0 0 0 4
2003 Arizona Cardinals 10 5 14 107 7.6 36 0 1 0 4
2004 Arizona Cardinals 15 15 15 105 7.0 18 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 226 219 515 3224 6.3 86 11 19 5 100




Who would you consider the more talented back?
Huh ??? Talent is something that is judged on an individual basis...Analyzing stats means nothing...here is why (1) Two players who's stats are being compared aren't in identical situations(2)Not being played in the same game(3) not facing the same opponents(4) Not running the same offense....How on god's green earth can you look at a piece of paper with numbers on it, and judge who is more talented???

Last edited by real; 07-06-2006 at 03:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #17
hollywood_texan
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 44
Posts: 3,021
Rep Power: 1649 hollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respectedhollywood_texan is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

The Houston Texans are 14-34 since drafting Davis. He has played very well with an enemic offense. 2004 was a decent year, but they started off very slow and ended with a thud. In addition, the defense hasn't really provided a lot of help either over the years, in spurts from time to time but nothing significant.

Taking that into consideration and Davis' past performance, his production and value could have been a lot more valuable on a team that was more successful.

The guys Davis is being compared to are on teams that are more competitive.
hollywood_texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #18
real
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywood_texan
The Houston Texans are 14-34 since drafting Davis. He has played very well with an enemic offense. 2004 was a decent year, but they started off very slow and ended with a thud. In addition, the defense hasn't really provided a lot of help either over the years, in spurts from time to time but nothing significant.

Taking that into consideration and Davis' past performance, his production and value could have been a lot more valuable on a team that was more successful.

The guys Davis is being compared to are on teams that are more competitive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #19
eltoro
Rookie
 
eltoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 49
Rep Power: 0 eltoro is ridin' the pine
Default

This debate is moot until DD can prove his ability to stay healthy for an entire season (or close to an entire season)...
eltoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006   #20
HOU-TEX 
Ah, Football!
 
HOU-TEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: P-land
Age: 44
Posts: 15,717
Rep Power: 143421 HOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respectedHOU-TEX is a quality contributor and well respected
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eltoro
This debate is moot until DD can prove his ability to stay healthy for an entire season (or close to an entire season)...
Thank you, somebody else agrees.
__________________
Kubiak: "They’re battling their tail off." Translation: They suck.
OB: "They played hard with great effort." Translation: They suck.
HOU-TEX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Houston Texans Message Board & Forum - TexansTalk.com > The Great Fans of the Houston Texans > Texans Talk
Home Forums Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.


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