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?
Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
DD vs AFC Running Backs
- Thread starter trane
- Start date
R
real
Guest
#2: Larry Johnson
DD #4 ???
What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...
DD #4 ???
What about Lewis and Anderson in Baltimore...
or McGahee...
the wonger need food
All Pro
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.
You're right though, Domanick definitely has a shot at the Pro Bowl this year if he can stay healthy.
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.
R
real
Guest
Nawzer said:
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.xtruroyaltyx said:
xtruroyaltyx said:
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.
DocBar said:
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.
HOU-TEX
Ah, Football!
DocBar said:
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?
TexansTrueFan
All Pro
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.
R
real
Guest
thunderkyss said:
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....
R
real
Guest
TexansTrueFan said:
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...
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.trane said:
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?
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
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???
hollywood_texan
All Pro
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.
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.
R
real
Guest
hollywood_texan said:
hollywood_texan
All Pro
eltoro said:
The same can be said about another player on offesne with regard to his performance.
I am just amazed the slack one guy gets and other guys are hammered.
Life isn't fair, so I'll just leave it alone.
R
real
Guest
hollywood_texan said:
Well anytime you want to hear some good hammering pull up a chair....Because honestly DD has been our most productive offensive player....but....BUT...Thats more a knock on the rest of those slackers than it is a positive for DD...
what do you mean by rating talent on an individual basis? You must compare apples to apples or, in this case, RB's to RB's. How are you going to do that without using stats as some sort of reference point? All I'm asking is that, minus stats, what are the citeria being used to judge the level of talent of a particular player? Stats are, to me at least, a quantifiable resourse to indicate a players given proficiency at a particular position. They don't have to be against the same opponent or in the same game. You DO, IMO, have to rate the quality of the teams being played against. Are they good run stoppers? Do they have a good secondary, etc... And also rate the quality of the team the individual is on. David Carr might be the next Montana with Indy's line and scheme. Impossible to tell. Could ANY RB succeed last year in Arizona? I'm not saying stats tell the whole story by any means. All I'm saying is that you have to use them to make a credible decision on a players talent level. I also think that there are a lot of variables that make rating an individual player almost impossible. Schemes, surrounding talent, etc...xtruroyaltyx said:
Anyways, I'm running on and on so I'll stop for now and see if anyone can make sense of all this stuff I just typed.
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is...All stats can PROVE is who was more productive...People are forever going to argue talent, and who was better because people will have different opinions on that...I'm just saying don't throw stats at me to prove why someone is better...That person may have been more productive, but that doesn't make them more talented...IMO, there are some people who are more TALENTED, but never get a chance to put up any stats....Point: Stats don't prove talent
MorKnolle
All Pro
Top AFC RBs:
1) LaDanian Tomlinson - best overall RB in the NFL
2) Larry Johnson - possibly a better pure runner than LT, 2nd best overall in AFC
-------big drop off---------
3) Willis McGahee - better pure runner than anyone else on the list, is playing in a relatively crappy situation in Buffalo.
4) Rudi Johnson - better pure runner than Davis, probably less versatile
5) Domanick Davis - versatile RB but has injury problems
Honorable Mention:
Willie Parker
LaMont Jordan
Jamal Lewis
1) LaDanian Tomlinson - best overall RB in the NFL
2) Larry Johnson - possibly a better pure runner than LT, 2nd best overall in AFC
-------big drop off---------
3) Willis McGahee - better pure runner than anyone else on the list, is playing in a relatively crappy situation in Buffalo.
4) Rudi Johnson - better pure runner than Davis, probably less versatile
5) Domanick Davis - versatile RB but has injury problems
Honorable Mention:
Willie Parker
LaMont Jordan
Jamal Lewis
trane said:
{QUOTE}Both Emmitt and Barry are elite backs. Comparing the two is like comparing a sports car to a truck. It just a matter of preference.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of the point I was getting at. It's all about personal preference when judging something as intangible as talent level.
xtruroyaltyx said:
year three of Tiki Barber's career, and there would be no question of your mind that you would start Tiki over Bennette?? yeah right.......
The thing is that DD hasn't had the chance to have a break out year yet. You think Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rothlisberger would do just as bad as Carr behind our line, but you think Tiki Barber, LT, Shaun Alexander and Jamal Lewis would be going to the probowl behind the same line.
xtruroyaltyx said: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...
You only say that, because DD has averages 1000 yards a season...... in this case, it's the back, and not the line.
DocBar said:
Without a doubt, Barry Sanders is more talented, and more athletic(sp), but Emmit was the better back....... that's the way I see it.
HOU-TEX said:Thank you, somebody else agrees.
Put him on a better team, and he'll stay healthy..... keep those DLinemen off of him, have other real options to move the ball down field, and stop running him on every first and second down.
Wolf
100% Texan
if you put emmitt in Detroit and had Barry in cowboy land..
please..Barry would have easily had 20,000 yards (in 14years) Emmitt had 18,200+ or to that effect
Barry was IT for Detroit
.....
As far as the best RB I saw in my generation Bo Jackson.. power and Speed, just too bad his career was cut short.
Earl is #1b in my book
please..Barry would have easily had 20,000 yards (in 14years) Emmitt had 18,200+ or to that effect
Barry was IT for Detroit
.....
As far as the best RB I saw in my generation Bo Jackson.. power and Speed, just too bad his career was cut short.
Earl is #1b in my book
I think you're cutting Sanders short if he played behind Emmitt's line. He had 15,000+ in 10 seasons at Detroit. Sux about Jackson. He was a joy to watch.Wolf said:
Campbell is in my top 2 backs. I go back and forth with Jim Brown. That man was a monster if ever there was one.
MorKnolle
All Pro
Barry Sanders is (was) a better RB than Emmitt Smith, I would venture to say Barry was the best RB in the history of the NFL. Emmitt's longevity and the fact he played for a vastly superior team led to his superior career stats, but Barry was easily a better runner. He had at least 1100 yards each of his 10 seasons, and he averaged 1530 rushing yards per year (99.8 yards per game) and 5.0 yards per carry over his career, and made the Pro Bowl all 10 seasons of his career (2 more than Emmitt made in 15 seasons) with a pretty bad team surrounding him. Walter Payton is a relatively close 2nd best RB ever, with others like Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown, and some others pretty close behind. Bo Jackson could have turned into something special had he stayed healthy and been a full-time football player, he was definitely one of the more exciting players ever.
DocBar said:
If this were true, then Dallas would've been trading running backs the way Denver has....... but they weren't.... anybody remember a ridiculous trade involving any of Emmitts back-ups?? I don't. The line makes the back, that's true, but many times, the back makes the line. No doubt Jimmy Johnson did his homework, and put the right people in the right places to be the best they can be.
& While sticking Emmitt in Detroit might have reduced Emmitts stats, I don't think it would've changed the W-L much at all.
Texans86
Rookie
Is everyone forgetting Shaun Alexander in their top backs equation. He only lead the league last year, and came in second by 1 yard two years ago. He is quietly one of the best backs in the league. I think DD is a quality player, who is above average, but not elite. If he were slightly faster, that breakaway speed, he would be in that category. I have to agree with everyone else though, that after LT and L.Johnson, there's a large dropoff in talent.
Wolf
100% Texan
thunderkyss said:
emmitt stayed injury free and they didn't do a RBBC
49 rushes by richards in 92
74 rushed by lassic in 93
60+ rushes by coleman in 94
only guy they drafted high is sherman williams averaged about 1/2 yard less than emmitt, yet he only got 48 rushes in 95
these guys got a play here or there on in garbage time .. and yes you can nitpick that Emmitt averaged more yards per carry than those guys
Wolf
100% Texan
just glancing a denvers..
After T.D.. they had burroughs carrying the load on those years but the other 2 backs got between 60-80 carries
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/denindex.htm
After T.D.. they had burroughs carrying the load on those years but the other 2 backs got between 60-80 carries
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/denindex.htm
Wolf said:
regardless of the health of the starter. Denver is a runningback producing machine.
If it was all about the line, then Dallas wouldn't have been paying Emmitt like they did. He'd be as expendable, as a #2 reciever........ a valuable commodity, but not something the team cannot do without.
MorKnolle
All Pro
Texans86 said:
The title of the thread said "DD vs. AFC Running Backs", Shaun Alexander (and Tiki Barber) are in the NFC so I didn't include them in my list, but they certainly would be in the top 5 in the league, and others in the NFC would probably be even with or ahead of DD.
MorKnolle said:
You don't know how much it hurts to hear you say this......
jagibelieve
Waterboy
Not a bad list. I'm not sure I would rank Domanick Davis that high, but he is a good back, easily in the top 10. You are also very much right about Fred Taylor, when healthy. Most teams still must account for him when he's in the backfield, however, how much longer can he be productive?Nawzer said:
R
real
Guest
texan279 said:
Im with you...I think that major homerism is the prime suspect when DD ranks within your top five backs in the leauge...DD puts up some pretty good numbers but he's not overly talented....he's ok....
DD came within 24 or so yards of being one of VERY FEW backs to have 3 1,000 yd seasons and that was with missing significant time. I'm not a huge fan of the 1,000 yd mark, but the fact that few other backs have done it must mean something. IMO, 1,500 would be a better barometer of greatness in a 16 game season.xtruroyaltyx said:
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
Look my point is...IMO, DD=Average...in the NFL IMO, 1000yds=Average...Im not sure why only a few RB's have 3 consecutive 1000 yard seasons, but Im willing to speculate that it has nothing to do with the talent of the player...IMO, it probably just has to do with stability within the team, and staying relatively injury free...Like I have mentioned,IMO, stats mean nothing when evaluating talent...There are some players who's stats weren't as good as DD's last year, but I would still take them in a heart beat over him...i.e..Tatum Bell,Ronnie Brown, Jamal Lewis,...just to name a few
TheCD
Rookie
DocBar said:
I agree. Sanders doesn't hold the all-time rushing record (regardless of whether he could have) and Emmitt wasn't as fluid a back. They're both great backs, but Emmitt never intentionally ran backwards for a great deal of lost yardage either.
I'm going to wait another year before I put Larry Johnson and Willie Parker in the top of the AFC. They played good for less than a season so far...but for all we know it could have been an anomaly. I'm sure that Johnson will be a definite #2 here next year. But there's just no way he's an all-round better player than L.T. He may garner more yards...but I doubt he'll ever throw for 4 TD's and a 153.3 Passer Rating like L.T.