R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
Stats are like Scores...Meaning the more talented team may not always win...like the more talented player may not have the better stats...thanks for that analysis...
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
DD vs AFC Running Backs
- Thread starter trane
- Start date
Stats are like Scores...Meaning the more talented team may not always win...like the more talented player may not have the better stats...thanks for that analysis...
I still haven't seen a reasonable definition of "talent" or how it is meted out in reference to a particular player or position. Can anyone please tell me why L.T. is a more"talented" back than DD? Is it just "common knowledge"? Tell me something more quantifiable than just "he's more talented". Explain the position you hold and why, with provable examples. Not trying to be a jackass, it just seems like a bandwagon kind of thing and everybody is more or less stating the same thing with no objective reasons.xtruroyaltyx said:Stats are like Scores...Meaning the more talented team may not always win...like the more talented player may not have the better stats...thanks for that analysis...
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
IMO, Talent is something judged on an individual basis...Example: Some people think the rolling stones are talented...I do not.....I guess its just a matter of opinion...And I am not going to be so redundant as to put why LT is more Talented than DD...Do you think That DD is more Talented than LT? If you do I think you should be the one to explain....
Thank you for proving my point. Talent on a football field is ambiguos at best. ALL of the players have talent. A lot of the results of a certain player come from schemes and coaching systms, as well as individual performances.xtruroyaltyx said:IMO, Talent is something judged on an individual basis...Example: Some people think the rolling stones are talented...I do not.....I guess its just a matter of opinion...And I am not going to be so redundant as to put why LT is more Talented than DD...Do you think That DD is more Talented than LT? If you do I think you should be the one to explain....
I believe that DD IS an upper echelon(NOT saying great) player. He has made some awesome plays on a horrible team and put up the numbers to back it up. LT is an awesome player, and I feel more talented than DD because he was putting up even better numbers than DD on a team that was just as bad for a couple of years. LT did this on a team that ran and ran and ran. LT has AVERAGED 340 carries a season. DD has only hit 300(302) ONCE. LT is, hands down, a more talented back because he is the centerpoint of the Chargers offense and is rarely shut down. News Flash!!! I just checked his STATS and he had a 100 reception year in 2003. THAT is impressive. Especially when you look at his 1,645 yds rushing. How can you possibly judge a players performance without looking at his numbers? It shoulodn't be the end-all-be-all of rating a player, but it HAS to play a role in it. YAC and yards after initial contact are some telling stats on a players level of ability.
Vambo, the Marble Eye
Waterboy
HOU-TEX said:All this talk about DD and we don't even know if he'll be starting the season opener due to health. It doesn't matter because we're going to have 2 backs running the ball this year combining for 2000 yds.
I guess I have to agree with this line of thought... I don't really care where DD ranks as much as I care whether the Texans have a running game that can pose a legitimate threat to give us some game breakers... even if it means some "long ball" to AJ and Moulds.
DD is good enough... I hope he rushes for a combined 1600 yrs... IF HE IS HEALTHY he would go a long way toward helping the Texans get out of the cellar in terms of producing points.
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:Thank you for proving my point. Talent on a football field is ambiguos at best. ALL of the players have talent. A lot of the results of a certain player come from schemes and coaching systms, as well as individual performances.
I believe that DD IS an upper echelon(NOT saying great) player. He has made some awesome plays on a horrible team and put up the numbers to back it up. LT is an awesome player, and I feel more talented than DD because he was putting up even better numbers than DD on a team that was just as bad for a couple of years. LT did this on a team that ran and ran and ran. LT has AVERAGED 340 carries a season. DD has only hit 300(302) ONCE. LT is, hands down, a more talented back because he is the centerpoint of the Chargers offense and is rarely shut down. News Flash!!! I just checked his STATS and he had a 100 reception year in 2003. THAT is impressive. Especially when you look at his 1,645 yds rushing. How can you possibly judge a players performance without looking at his numbers? It shoulodn't be the end-all-be-all of rating a player, but it HAS to play a role in it. YAC and yards after initial contact are some telling stats on a players level of ability.
I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...
That was a good answer. I feel the same way about the talent arguments. Stats only take you so far in judging talent, but they can't be totally ignored. I was really just playing devils advocate and being a little argumentive. I try to base my opinions on stats, quality of team/opponents, scheme and surrounding talent. Obviously, a more talented OL will usually lead to better stats for a RB. Anyway, nice posts.xtruroyaltyx said:I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...
Vambo, the Marble Eye
Waterboy
DocBar said:
misread? nope. My fault... by combined.... I meant something like 1200 rushing and 400 receiving would be just about right.
bayoudreamn
Rookie
trane said:
I think EJ is a perfect case for comparison to indicate how stats and other considerations have to be looked at together and in perspective. Statistically speaking, Indy may not miss James this year. The question is whether or not those who replace him can help in all the ways he helped that don't show up in statistics.
bayoudreamn
Rookie
xtruroyaltyx said:
Good point. I agree. That's why we need to leave the whole Texans team alone and be nice to all the millionaires until the season starts....then we can beat 'em up.
xtruroyaltyx said:I understand what you are saying...But I just disagree totally...Stats are just a way to satisfy peoples fetish with sorting and ranking...Of course the better player should put up the better stats...But IMO, thats not always the case...Like I have stated Stats are a meausure of productivity, and that is all that you can gather from looking at a stat sheet...which player is more productive....TALENT is something that you have to judge for yourself, something you have to see...My point is that numbers on a page does not define talent, it defines productivity, and the most productive players aren't neccesarily the most talented or gifted...
by definition, a bust is a talented individual who has not produced....... give me the guy with less talent, and more production anyday.
Vambo said:
DD did that in 2004........ with the same crap coaching, and same offensive line that has been less than beneficial to our team. With Kubiak, Sherman, and crew(including an improved David Carr) look for DD to produce a combined 2000 yards.
I think it's an attainable goal within the confines of Kubes system. Even if the TE and/or Moulds isn't getting open, we would still be gaining positive yards and moving the chains. Edge, LT, Emmitt Smith have all put up numbers like that and still had receivers making big yards. I wouldn't mind 30 points a game at all. 1,500-1,600 yds rushing and 400-500 receiving would be just fine in my book.Wolf said:
texan279
Hall of Fame
thunderkyss said:
2000 yards? Only 3 running backs have done that in the last 3 seasons, Tiki Barber, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Jamal Lewis, and the season Lewis did it, he had over 2000 rushing yards alone. I think expecting 2000 combined yards from DD is a bit much, I would like to see him get healthy and start 16 games before we start expecting a 2000 yard season from DD, he's been rehabbing that knee for 7 months now. Hell, Carson Palmer sustained numerous ligament tears, a shredded ligament, damaged cartilage, and a dislocated knee cap all AFTER Davis had already had his surgery and Palmer was participating in minicamp and doing 11 on 11 drills two weeks ago.
texan279 said:
IN 2004, DD ran and recieved for 1800 yards in 15 games. ..... I'm only expected another 200............. 224 to be exact.
killeentexan
Practice Squad
ummmm, not quite correct....Tiki has topped 2,000 yds each of the last 2 years. Ahman Green did it in '03, Priest Holmes in '03, Edgerrin James in '04, Larry Johnson in '05, Jamal Lewis in '03, Deuce McAllister in '03 and Tomlinson in '03. Thats 9 times by 8 different running backs in the last 3 years alone. While I'm not saying that Dom will also top 2,000 yds....it is a distinct possibility if he stays healthy. Heck, he had 1,776 yds in 15 games in '04. If we have improved as much as we all hope we have.....Davis can get to 2,000 yds.texan279 said:
texan279
Hall of Fame
killeentexan said:
You're right, I went to a different site and double checked, the site I got the stats from the first time had wrong stats posted, won't go to that site again. IMO those backs are on a different level than DD, these backs I consider "great" compared to DD who I consider to be a "good" back. Also, every back that has done it has been to the pro bowl before, something I honestly do not think Davis will ever do. With the additions to our offense like Moulds and Putzier in place to spread the field, improved coaching, and hopefully more time for Carr in the backfield, I don't think Davis will be that safety valve for Carr like he has been in the past, especially after hearing the comments about Carr going through reads on pass plays instead of locking onto one receiver and waiting for him to get open like has been done in the past. I am not trying to dog on Davis here, but IMO he will never be a "great" back or go to a pro bowl, and if he ever does gain a combined 2000 yards or goes to a pro bowl, I'll come back for my hot plate of crow...
I don't like to use the pro bowl tag too much. That seems to be more of a popularity thing than anything else. Lots of guys go just on name recognition.texan279 said:
DD has put up the #'s to prove he is a productive back who should be in the upper echelon. Maybe not top 5, but top 10 easily. And Edge and Marshall Faulk put up great #'s despite all the weapons at Manning's and Warner's disposal.
From profootballtalk:
But the Texans also should get a pass for passing on Bush if Domanick Davis becomes a Pro Bowler (and we think he will) in Kubiak's system. Sure, it's still possible that Bush will become the NFL's Michael Jordan (and Williams the football equivalent of Sam Bowie), but the powers-that-be in Houston were put off by his handling of the scandal that erupted in the days prior to the draft, and we tend to agree with the notion that, while Reggie says all of the right things when folks are watching, Bush very well could turn out to be a problem child behind closed doors.
Answers a few questions if not all.
But the Texans also should get a pass for passing on Bush if Domanick Davis becomes a Pro Bowler (and we think he will) in Kubiak's system. Sure, it's still possible that Bush will become the NFL's Michael Jordan (and Williams the football equivalent of Sam Bowie), but the powers-that-be in Houston were put off by his handling of the scandal that erupted in the days prior to the draft, and we tend to agree with the notion that, while Reggie says all of the right things when folks are watching, Bush very well could turn out to be a problem child behind closed doors.
Answers a few questions if not all.
R
real
Guest
thunderkyss said:
Of course...But IMO, thats a hindsight statement... You nor anyone else knows who's going to bust and who isn't...If you were in charge of a teams draft, you wouldn't pass on Mario Williams to take Elvis Dumerville...And you Wouldn't pass on Reggie Bush to Take Lendale White....Even though Lendale may score more TD's, and ultimately become the better player, and Dumerville may put up more sacks(not saying this IS going to happen)...There is no way you pass on the more talented player...
xtruroyaltyx said:
At the same time, I won't draft Reggie Bush with the #1 overall, if I have DD, and I'm pleased with what he has done in our system. If I'm pleased with his numbers, I would not draft a Running back with the #1 overall, because that says to him that you are no longer the man in Houston...... sure, we can play two guys..... but it's obvious to see what we're doing here.
And then with my statement earlier about busts....... talented individuals who do not produce..... it takes more than talent to make it in the NFL.... and sometimes........ most of the time actually, it's more difficult to find that extra something.
That's why you'll have a QB taken 2nd, and 11th overall have better(and longer) careers than the #1 QB taken that year. Or a 7th round QB take a team to 3 SuperBowl Championships, where many #1 overalls never get to the SuperBowl at all.
A bird in the hand, that's all I'm saying in respect to DD.
R
real
Guest
thunderkyss said:
I understand what you are saying, But I won't get into the reasons we should or shouldn't have drafted reggie bush...And I definitely won't speculate on why the Texans decided to go with Mario because that isn't what the point of my argument is...My argument is that Stats can't judge talent...Thats all...I know you say you want DD over RB...but would you feel the same way if they were in the same draft ? No....There are DE's that put up better stats than Mario...We Still took him though...Why? Because the Texans feel he was the most talented DE with the most potential....Which brings me back full circle...DD has put up good/decent stats in his NFL career...BUT He is not an overly talented back...Im not saying anything is wrong with that...Im just stating my opinion on DD...
R
real
Guest
DocBar said:
It's all good....
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
xtruroyaltyx said:
Actually, I think this is an excellent point but not the point you were wanting to make.
I think Reggie Bush is OVERLY talented. To get the most production out of this guy, you've got to find all sorts of ways to find him touches because he's such a threat and so damned talented. And when you do that, your offense starts becoming one-dimensional. You get a situation like the Lions had with Barry Sanders. Great back. Incredible to watch. Some of his most exciting runs were just back to the line of scrimmage.
For Barry to be successful, you had to feed him the ball over and over. He'd have 15 runs for 20 yards total and then break an 80 yarder. By the time he broke that run, his team was usually out of the game. When he did get to the playoffs, he got SHUT down.
I think Bush is going to be very similar to that. For him to be successful, his team will have to fail. And if he's a high first rounder, the team is almost obligated to dedicate those touches to him regardless of how it impacts their chemistry.
I think DD has a good chance to be successful in this offense. And I think we have a better chance of having a successful team with people other than Bush.
But that's just me...
Very good way to put that. Here's a question: Would you rather have a telented back or productive back? As has been pointed out, the two are not the same.The Pencil Neck said:Actually, I think this is an excellent point but not the point you were wanting to make.
I think Reggie Bush is OVERLY talented. To get the most production out of this guy, you've got to find all sorts of ways to find him touches because he's such a threat and so damned talented. And when you do that, your offense starts becoming one-dimensional. You get a situation like the Lions had with Barry Sanders. Great back. Incredible to watch. Some of his most exciting runs were just back to the line of scrimmage.
For Barry to be successful, you had to feed him the ball over and over. He'd have 15 runs for 20 yards total and then break an 80 yarder. By the time he broke that run, his team was usually out of the game. When he did get to the playoffs, he got SHUT down.
I think Bush is going to be very similar to that. For him to be successful, his team will have to fail. And if he's a high first rounder, the team is almost obligated to dedicate those touches to him regardless of how it impacts their chemistry.
I think DD has a good chance to be successful in this offense. And I think we have a better chance of having a successful team with people other than Bush.
But that's just me...
xtruroyaltyx said:
Ok, you're equating talent with being the better athlete(player)
I don't do that........ that may be the difference there.
But in this draft, with Kubiak as our head coach, if we were to draft a runningback, I'd have been just as happy with D'Angelo, Addai, or Reggie.....
Michael Bennett, or DD............ I'm going with DD because he is the better player. He has produced more with less.
Edgerin James over Ricky Williams?? who is the better player?? They are equally talented....... but who'd have thought Rikki (who never got hurt in college) would end up getting hurt his first three seasons?? Who'd have known he was a pot head?? who'd have known he'll make some goofy decisions?? (obviously the Colts must have known......... )
Vince Young.......... or Matt Lienart...... who is the better player?? Stats are about the same......... yards per attempt........ completion percentage..... Matt only has more passing yards, because he threw the ball more(because UT was blowing games out, and Vince sat in the 4th Quarter)....... But Vince also has rushing yards, where Matt doesn't....... all the while, throwing just as often as Matt......
R
real
Guest
thunderkyss said:
Again...the EJ vs. RW is a hindsight argument that no one could have predicted...And I am not so blissfully oblivious to not know that the more talented player doesn't always turn out to be a better pro...And the Matt Vs. Vince is a perfect example...IMO, VY is more talented, and may ultimately have more of an "impact" on his team...but i do think that Matt will put up better numbers, and will probably win more over the course of his career...Who is the better player?? what do you mean by that ? Who will be more productive ? Who will have the better career or Who has more talent ? If you meant who has more talent IMO, its vince all day long...And no i'm not equating talent with anything...Talent stands by itself...Stats, production, and all the things we can track = a players success...A players talent and success don't always make a pretty correlation...
xtruroyaltyx said:
I totally agree....... and that's why I'll use stats many times to justify my argument.
and to me, If I have a talented player who puts up good stats(DD), and another who is more talented, but doesn't produce, or who hasn't produced as much(Bennette, Goings, etc.......), I'm going to say the one who produced is the better player, until that more talented guy starts producing........ maybe it's because of his team(I can't see how DD's team is a plus for him against anyone in the league right now)..... maybe it's his will....... or his tenacity.... who knows??
R
real
Guest
thunderkyss said:
I understand exactly what you are saying....But my whole point has been that stats don't neccessarily tell the whole story...thats it...nothing more, nothing less....I am not big on DD and I think too much is read into the stats that he has put up...I believe that there are many more backs that can do better or just as good as he has in our system...
The Pencil Neck
Hall of Fame
DocBar said:
I want players that produce on the field not at the combine. I don't care so much about their 40-times or short shuttles or long jumps. Someone can have great potential but still be missing unmeasurables that are critical.
Of course, that could be turned around on me because I'm a Carr supporter and he hasn't produced.
I'm a Carr supporter because I think his lack of production was a symptom of the system he was playing in. Like several other people have stated, this year is the year we find out.With Domanick, I think he's shown that he can be a productive back. Last year wasn't so great (even though he had 4.2 yards per carry and 8.6 yards per catch) but he has averaged over a 1,000 a year in an offense against which defenses could overload the line to stop him and virtually ignore the pass.