Mike Alstott

[Hydra]

The Buccaneers may be looking to trade or cut him. Would he be a good featured back for the Texans?

[Drewdog]

Hell Yeah I would take Alstott in a second!! For goaline or short yardage situations, Alstott is money. He would be a great compliment for James Allen.

[Hottoddie]

The only knock that I've heard on him, is that his run blocking is suspect. Otherwise, I'd love to get him, but at what price?

[Ric]

Originally posted by Hottoddie
The only knock that I've heard on him, is that his run blocking is suspect. Otherwise, I'd love to get him, but at what price?
he also fumbles. a lot. i think alstott's vastly overrated; sure, he's the best FB in the league... but it's not as if the league is bursting with talent at that position.

i wouldn't give up the pick or the money; fullback is the easiest position on offense to fill and it's also, depending on the offense, one of the least important.

[Hydra]

I would run Alstott as my halfback. His footwork is fantstic and he is still pretty fast. There is nothing better than seeing him catching a screen pass and seeing just a cornerback between him and the open field.

[kidrock8]

Originally posted by Hydra
I would run Alstott as my halfback. His footwork is fantstic and he is still pretty fast. There is nothing better than seeing him catching a screen pass and seeing just a cornerback between him and the open field.

And we all know how great TB's offense was with him...

He's fast for his size, but he's not fast for a tailback. He would be the slowest TB in the league.

FB's who can make plays really only fit in the West Coast offense scheme.

I assume the FB's role in our offense will be to block first. If that is the case, Alstott would not make any sense to bring in.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Ric

he also fumbles. a lot. i think alstott's vastly overrated; sure, he's the best FB in the league... but it's not as if the league is bursting with talent at that position.

i wouldn't give up the pick or the money; fullback is the easiest position on offense to fill and it's also, depending on the offense, one of the least important.

Excellent points. I also think that taking a runner at 29 on an expansion team wouldn't be the smartest move in the world.

[Major]

Excellent points. I also think that taking a runner at 29 on an expansion team wouldn't be the smartest move in the world.

I've never understood the age argument. Players don't tend to stay on one team their entire careers these days. I seriously doubt that the FB we have this year will be the one we have 5 years from now. It just doesn't happen for whatever reason. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a 29 year old at this point. If we could get him cheap, I'd take him in a heartbeat. He's one of the few fullbacks that provides a true running game on offense. Just having him on the field means the defense has to watch him on every play ... that's not true with most fullbacks who'll carry the ball 2 or 3 times a game at most.

[LAfadeaway33]

I think we need to focus on a fullback who's strength is run-blocking.

[kidrock8]

Alstott is the Mo Taylor of the NFL. In the sense that he provides things that most FBs can't, but he doesn't do the basic things that most FBs do.

[Ric]

Originally posted by Major
I've never understood the age argument.
because running backs have the shortest shelf life among nfl players; the vast majority are done before they even hit 30. and like a pitcher, when a running back loses it, he loses it. done, period. and it can happen overnight.

the older they are, the bigger the risk.

Originally posted by Major
He's one of the few fullbacks that provides a true running game on offense. Just having him on the field means the defense has to watch him on every play ... that's not true with most fullbacks who'll carry the ball 2 or 3 times a game at most.
yeah, did wonders for tampa bay's offense... in fact, name the last super bowl champion whose fullback played even a minor role on offense (aside from blocking).

they're a dime a dozen.

[Major]

yeah, did wonders for tampa bay's offense...

One player -- certainly not a Fullback -- cannot overcoming shortcomings all over the field and in the coaching. Even given their offense's passing ineptness, he averaged 4+ yds per carry last year as the primary running option. That's not bad.

in fact, name the last super bowl champion whose fullback played even a minor role on offense (aside from blocking).

How is this relevent? How many FBs have there been that have been legitimate running threats? How many of those were surrounded by talent all over the field? No one is saying a FB by himself will make a team into a championship team. That doesn't mean it's not a great option to have.

they're a dime a dozen.

FBs who can block are a dime a dozen. FBs who can actually run the ball are not quite as common.

[CriscoKidd]

If he was cheap, I'd say hell yeah pick him up.

But I doubt he'll come at a bargain price, esp to a expansion team like the Texans.

He just isn't worth too much $$$, for reasons Ric already addressed. Let some other team overpay for his services.

[junglerules]

i would say that if you look at the broncos with howard griffith, or the packers with william henderson, those are two Super Bowl teams that definitely had a fullback play an important part in the actual flow of the offense. SO did rathman for the niners back in the day.

I'm not saying that Fullback is the most important position in the offense, but there have been very successful teams to use the position to their advantage.

[haven]

because running backs have the shortest shelf life among nfl players; the vast majority are done before they even hit 30. and like a pitcher, when a running back loses it, he loses it. done, period. and it can happen overnight.

the older they are, the bigger the risk.

Yeah, but age is only half the equation. The other part of it is wear-and-tear. Alstott probably ranks somewhere in the middle in the latter category, since he tends to be a bruising runner, but hasn't really carried the ball all that many times.

[Ric]

Originally posted by Major
How is this relevent?
i think it's relative because you're going to have to pay him and give up picks and/or players, so, imo, you had better be getting someone who makes a definitive difference; FBs don't, and that includes alstott, who wasn't able to lift a tampa offense that had far more talent that texans will.

again, fullback is the easiest position on the field to fill.

Originally posted by haven
Alstott probably ranks somewhere in the middle in the latter category, since he tends to be a bruising runner, but hasn't really carried the ball all that many times.
yeah, but when he's not carrying the ball, he's blocking, so it's not as if he's on the sideline resting up.

i don't think you should EVER trade for a running back, unless you're getting one in his absolute prime, and even then, he'd have to have a cap-friendly deal and not cost you down the road (ie picks in future years). they're too unpredictable; i'd rather grow one from scratch.

[Rocket River]

I would have liked to get Warrick Dunn
He is better imo...


Rocket River

[haven]

I would have liked to get Warrick Dunn
He is better imo...

Probably, but he hasn't really produced all that better than Alstott recently... and went at a ridiculous price tag.

[WinkFan]

It's a tough call. Who's the most overrated player in the NFL? Warrick Dunn or Mike Alstott? I can't decide.

[Hydra]

If you think either of those guys is the most overrated player in the NFl, I would like to introduce you to Az-Zahir Hakeem.

[Rocket River]

Overrate
how about David Carr.. . oops he not in the nfl yet

;-)

Rocket River