Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Todd Gurley, RB Georgia

Mollywhopper said:
You were making definitive statements regarding specific numbers. Specifically that 16 was unwise to draft a rb. Is it unreasonable then to ask what specific number is no longer unwise?
Click to expand...

I think the point about the specific numbers, from my perspective, is that 16 means we could still have one of the tier 1 pass rushers, wideouts, etc., still available, or perhaps another tier 1 player at another position. At 23, that's far more unlikely while Gurley could still potentially be there to pick up. I don't think it's unfair to think that Gurley - with his injury concerns - is less palatable over one of those guys.
 
bhsman said:
I think the point about the specific numbers, from my perspective, is that 16 means we could still have one of the tier 1 pass rushers, wideouts, etc., still available, or perhaps another tier 1 player at another position. At 23, that's far more unlikely while Gurley could still potentially be there to pick up. I don't think it's unfair to think that Gurley - with his injury concerns - is less palatable over one of those guys.
Click to expand...

Guys available at other positions was never part of the equation. The idea presented was strictly, 'this position at this number is unwise'.
 
bhsman said:
I think the point about the specific numbers, from my perspective, is that 16 means we could still have one of the tier 1 pass rushers, wideouts, etc., still available, or perhaps another tier 1 player at another position. At 23, that's far more unlikely while Gurley could still potentially be there to pick up. I don't think it's unfair to think that Gurley - with his injury concerns - is less palatable over one of those guys.
Click to expand...

According to reports the Gm of Seattle only has 15 (16?) guys with first round grades in the draft

the KC GM says only 10-12 impact players

It's a reach to say that at 16 we won't be reaching no matter which way we go, so we might as well get the one we have highest rated, regardless of position... even RB

:kitten:
 
Mollywhopper said:
Guys available at other positions was never part of the equation. The idea presented was strictly, 'this position at this number is unwise'.
Click to expand...

Blake himself said it wasn't a hard rule, that's only you.

JB said:
According to reports the Gm of Seattle only has 15 (16?) guys with first round grades in the draft

the KC GM says only 10-12 impact players

It's a reach to say that at 16 we won't be reaching no matter which way we go, so we might as well get the one we have highest rated, regardless of position... even RB

:kitten:
Click to expand...

No offense but I'm not listening to anything a GM is saying within a month of the draft. :nolisten: Besides, that helps my point: we're far more likely to have one of those guys make it to 16th overall than 23rd or so.
 
bhsman said:
No offense but I'm not listening to anything a GM is saying within a month of the draft. :nolisten: Besides, that helps my point: we're far more likely to have one of those guys make it to 16th overall than 23rd or so.
Click to expand...

Agreed on listening to gm's

Never saw what point you were making...

I'm just saying that you have to take the BPA, if that player is a RB then so be it. If all your tier 1 guys are gone then you have to settle for what you can get to trade down
 
Mollywhopper said:
Oorrr ... here's what Blake himself said about what Blake himself said:



I'm not trying to pass off some arbitrary guideline as a critical expertise. So no, that's not on me.
Click to expand...

Wow. I think you need to take a nap. You are getting bent out of shape because we have a difference of opinion.

We're dudes on a Football forum talking opinions about the draft. Get over yourself with the critical expertise jab. We've gone from disagreeing to arguing and I think you might like it that way for some reason.
 
JB said:
Never saw what point you were making...

I'm just saying that you have to take the BPA, if that player is a RB then so be it. If all your tier 1 guys are gone then you have to settle for what you can get to trade down
Click to expand...

Even if there are only ~16 or so impact players in the first round and any of the teams in front of us make a reach, it only increases the chance of them being there at 16th overall. Being at 23rd overall means that chance is far less likely, for example. It's just a flat difference in percentage is all.

As for Gurley, he's not someone I'd draft at 16th but probably would at 23rd as the players I'd draft in front of him are more likely to be gone. That's all I was saying.
 
Blake said:
Wow. I think you need to take a nap. You are getting bent out of shape because we have a difference of opinion.

We're dudes on a Football forum talking opinions about the draft. Get over yourself with the critical expertise jab. We've gone from disagreeing to arguing and I think you might like it that way for some reason.
Click to expand...

Wow, I never thought he was trying to argue, merely to understand what you were saying.

It's the off season pre draft thing I guess
 
Blake said:
Wow. I think you need to take a nap. You are getting bent out of shape because we have a difference of opinion.

We're dudes on a Football forum talking opinions about the draft. Get over yourself with the critical expertise jab. We've gone from disagreeing to arguing and I think you might like it that way for some reason.
Click to expand...

I'm rested and not bent out of anything, but thanks. You can get upset if you like, but like JB said, I was just asking you about how you came to the specifics of your criticism. Which was no big deal and done really, until blahman tried to chime in and move the goalposts. No thanks there as well.
 
I strongly believe we need him at 16 due to the quality of his talents and the 16 game wear and tear on any RB. We took a dip in the charts when Foster went down. This man can be a huge factor in QB performance and closing out the year without a drop off at RB.
 
ghostlight said:
I strongly believe we need him at 16 due to the quality of his talents and the 16 game wear and tear on any RB. We took a dip in the charts when Foster went down. This man can be a huge factor in QB performance and closing out the year without a drop off at RB.
Click to expand...

On the off-chance that Gurley is as much of a top-10 pick as he's been talked up as of late and thus not there at 16th overall, what other running backs are you comfortable with the Texans taking? Not necessarilly at 16th overall, of course. I've talked up Ameer Abdullah a few times, though I know people have reservations about him.

Mollywhopper said:
I'm rested and not bent out of anything, but thanks. You can get upset if you like, but like JB said, I was just asking you about how you came to the specifics of your criticism. Which was no big deal and done really, until blahman tried to chime in and move the goalposts. No thanks there as well.
Click to expand...

Wonder what kind of cool thing you can get for all the internet points you made with this post, tough guy. :p I'd recommend the handheld radio.
 
bhsman said:
On the off-chance that Gurley is as much of a top-10 pick as he's been talked up as of late and thus not there at 16th overall, what other running backs are you comfortable with the Texans taking? Not necessarilly at 16th overall, of course. I've talked up Ameer Abdullah a few times, though I know people have reservations about him.
Click to expand...

I really really would like to get David Johnson
 
infantrycak said:
When their position on the depth chart says running back, sure. When you want a top 10 rushing attack for even 3 years running, not so much.
Click to expand...

If you don't have one, you value the RB position a lot higher

It's easy to devalue the RB position when you look at the success of Denver and Houston (Foster), but most teams don't get quite so fortunate to find such a gem very late or undrafted
 
JB said:
If you don't have one, you value the RB position a lot higher

It's easy to devalue the RB position when you look at the success of Denver and Houston (Foster), but most teams don't get quite so fortunate to find such a gem very late or undrafted
Click to expand...

And in those two examples, dedicate yourself to a running system many around here appear to eschew (even though it lets you draft OL lower).

I'm starting to think "power run game" is akin to Ron White's "bouncers" around here - they fondle themselves watching Roadhouse.
 
infantrycak said:
And in those two examples, dedicate yourself to a running system many around here appear to eschew (even though it lets you draft OL lower).

I'm starting to think "power run game" is akin to Ron White's "bouncers" around here.
Click to expand...

yeah well it is Texans Talk Fan forum... I've seen worse
 
infantrycak said:
When their position on the depth chart says running back, sure. When you want a top 10 rushing attack for even 3 years running, not so much.
Click to expand...

Top 10 rushing attacks are always much more dependent upon who's doing the blocking up front than who's taking the handoff.
 
IDEXAN said:
Top 10 rushing attacks are always much more dependent upon who's doing the blocking up front than who's taking the handoff.
Click to expand...

Good deal. So we just ended the Houston hating on Emmitt debate. Emmitt kicks Barry's ass.

But trite statements aside, name a few top 10 rushing attacks for say 3, that seems fair, seasons in a row without a top RB.

And seriously please name Emmitt and define yourself. ..
 
infantrycak said:
Good deal. So we just ended the Houston hating on Emmitt debate. Emmitt kicks Barry's ass.

But trite statements aside, name a few top 10 rushing attacks for say 3, that seems fair, seasons in a row without a top RB.

And seriously please name Emmitt and define yourself. ..
Click to expand...

You're being mighty hard on the young fella... How about a top 3 rushing attack any year with a mediocre running back?
 
IDEXAN said:
Top 10 rushing attacks are always much more dependent upon who's doing the blocking up front than who's taking the handoff.
Click to expand...

The Vikings were top 10 in 6 of 7 seasons from 2007-2013. Can you name their o-line? I'm sure you can name the RB.
 
JB said:
A good OL becomes known

The Hogs?
Click to expand...

Among NFL junkies like us, sure, but RBs become household names. The year the Saints put out that ridiculous 2011 offense I knew the name of every starter on the offensive line better than friends who wore Brees and Sproles jerseys every Sunday. :foottap:
 
bhsman said:
Among NFL junkies like us, sure, but RBs become household names. The year the Saints put out that ridiculous 2011 offense I knew the name of every starter on the offensive line better than friends who wore Brees and Sproles jerseys every Sunday. :foottap:
Click to expand...

ok?
 
IDEXAN said:
Top 10 rushing attacks are always much more dependent upon who's doing the blocking up front than who's taking the handoff.
Click to expand...

Alfred Blue oughta be pissed he always got stuck with the 3.1 ypc OL instead of the 4.8 ypc group Foster got to play behind.
 
Why does it have to be RB or OL? To me, it's more of an equation sort of thing. You can have a great rushing attack if you have a great scheme, you can have a great rushing attack if you have a dominant line, and you can have a great rushing attack if you have a great RB.

Generally, most of the top running backs year-to-year are relatively high draft choices. That doesn't mean there isn't a Trent Richardson here and there but for the most part, top running backs are drafted high.

But there are also usually some lower round guys in there that weren't highly prized coming out who happened to fall into the right system (like Arian), or find themselves behind the right o-line (like the Giants RBs a few years ago, maybe), or were just scouted wrong for one reason or another (like Arian.)

In the Mock, I drafted Gurley high because I think he happened to fit what the Giants want to do, and I think they'd be willing to take the risk with him... because he is a risk. I didn't draft Gordon there because, frankly, I don't trust Wisconsin RBs; I shouldn't let that Wisconsin RB thing color my judgment, but I do.

For us and what I think OB wants to do, I think he can find a guy a little later. I don't think Blue is the guy. I wouldn't be surprised to see an Ajayi taken later in the draft to fill the role OB wants.
 
Mollywhopper said:
Alfred Blue oughta be pissed he always got stuck with the 3.1 ypc OL instead of the 4.8 ypc group Foster got to play behind.
Click to expand...

Didn't Blue average 4.3 in Cleveland?


I mean I could look it up, but I'm pretty sure he did... 4.3 or 4.1 something like that.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
Generally, most of the top running backs year-to-year are relatively high draft choices. That doesn't mean there isn't a Trent Richardson here and there but for the most part, top running backs are drafted high.
Click to expand...

I've noticed a lot of the low round guys who are the exceptions prove to be the exceptions very temporarily. For example in the CB comparison Tillman making the probowl 2 years based frankly not off overall CB skills but getting INTs and returning them.

thunderkyss said:
Didn't Blue average 4.3 in Cleveland?


I mean I could look it up, but I'm pretty sure he did... 4.3 or 4.1 something like that.
Click to expand...

4.3 (against a team that on average gave up 4.5), so? Wali Lundy once averaged 6.4 against the Tacks.
 
Last edited:
thunderkyss said:
Didn't Blue average 4.3 in Cleveland?


I mean I could look it up, but I'm pretty sure he did... 4.3 or 4.1 something like that.
Click to expand...

Cleveland has a solid pass D that year but a poor interior line, so they gave up a lot of rushing yards. That isn't to dismiss Blue's day, but it's not indicative of him as a player (as least as far as his rookie year went).
 
bhsman said:
Cleveland has a solid pass D that year but a poor interior line, so they gave up a lot of rushing yards. That isn't to dismiss Blue's day, but it's not indicative of him as a player (as least as far as his rookie year went).
Click to expand...

I only pointed to Cleveland because it's one of the few games Blue got more than a handful of carries & he looked fine for a rookie. I'm not saying he's the next great thing. I'm all on board with taking Gurly at 16.

I just don't think the book is closed on Blue.

The run game is extremely important to us considering the uncertainty at the QB position. Arian, Gurly, & Blue would help any QB we stick back there.
 
thunderkyss said:
I only pointed to Cleveland because it's one of the few games Blue got more than a handful of carries & he looked fine for a rookie. I'm not saying he's the next great thing. I'm all on board with taking Gurly at 16.

I just don't think the book is closed on Blue.

The run game is extremely important to us considering the uncertainty at the QB position. Arian, Gurly, & Blue would help any QB we stick back there.
Click to expand...

I agree; my point was that for a late-round rookie, Blue looked good when put in a position to succeed, though didn't always excel in other games. Part of that is that LSU ran Power up until his final year there (they recently switched to more Zone plays, not unlike our run scheme last year, to make the most of Fournette) so he's transitioning to a different type of running scheme altogether. That may change with another year in O'Brien's system.
 
I'm leaning towards those analyst who believe there are only 12 or so many game changers in this draft. Gurley is one of them.
 
bhsman said:
On the off-chance that Gurley is as much of a top-10 pick as he's been talked up as of late and thus not there at 16th overall, what other running backs are you comfortable with the Texans taking? Not necessarilly at 16th overall, of course. I've talked up Ameer Abdullah a few times, though I know people have reservations about him.



Wonder what kind of cool thing you can get for all the internet points you made with this post, tough guy. :p I'd recommend the handheld radio.
Click to expand...

Melvin Gordon, is a true starter ready to play for us on day one. I'm also setting him at 16th. Yes AA is a good choice for a later round pick. I really think the QB situation plays into the RB at #16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top