Yeah, i'm sure the Chargers and Chiefs would trade LJ and LT any day for a stud D lineman as long as they could save a few bucks on the salary cap. Most all teams run the ball more then they throw. You gotta have someone who can move the chains, trust them to take care of the ball, and then breakout if they find a hole. The RB position is waaaay more important to a successful football team than you make it sound. On every level high school to the pros.
Bad choice to mention LJ. He was the 27th pick in the '03 draft. KC was not terribly high on him until Priest got hurt. In fact, there were trade rumors about LJ swirling for the two years until he started. And you know what? They probably would rather have Terrell Suggs, Mike Rucker, John Abraham, etc. or any other elite DL than LJ. The Chiefs have an offensive line that typically produces 3 or 4 pro bowlers a year. LJ does well in that situation, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of NFL RBs could tear it up in KC too. LT is a special talent. Probably headed for the Hall of Fame. This year will be an extra challenge for him though. Time will tell.
the next gayle sayers? why do people keep saying that. its kind of irritating. I can take the next marshall faulk. most people have never seen sayers play, and I'm sure he hasn't. I don't care about his analysis, because his column is strictly for entertainment purposes only. Just please stop saying gayle sayers. its like an attempt to make reggie to be as legendary as possible by evoking the memory of a guy most of us have never seen and only heard stories about. its just silly and unrealistic. it was a whole different era. no one compares incoming quarterbacks to johnny unitas
The Chargers have yet to win anything with LT. They have wandered between mediocrity and sorta-potentially-good for the last several years. I never said the RB position wasn't important - just the running back himself. You do have to have someone that can move the chains. Reggie Bush is no better than any of 20 other running backs in the league at doing that - his unique value is in the open field. So if you can get the "core value" of the running back position - moving the chains - for cheap, you do it. And most of that "core value" comes from the quality of the offensive line anyway, not the running back. Indy - who knows a thing or two about offense - let Edge go for that exact reason. Will it hurt not to have him? Of course. Would they prefer Dwight Freeney over Edge? Absolutely. The Seahawks were ready to let Shaun Alexander go as well, except for the PR mess that would have resulted from letting the MVP of a superbowl team go.
1000 yard for back is not as good a measure as it used to be. Get 67 yards a game and there's 100 yards. Only 3 times those past 10 years has any of their backs NOT had 1200 yards, a far better standard to go by. They still need the players to make it work sure but Kubiak's brought that philosophy with him and he's seemingly sticking to it. I still believe they had a change of heart at the last hours and went with Mario as a very solid option after Reggie Bush negotiations stalled. They're not gonna tell us that no way. I'll give them credit for standing behind their pick so far though
For every team that lets an RB go you can find another team that resigns it's top RB to a big contract or drafts an RB high in the 1st round. By the way, Arizona let Simeon Rice go while Tennesse let Jevon Kearse go. I guess the DE isn't important! If you can get the core value for cheap, you do it- that applies to EVERY position. Freeney is a better defensive player than Edge is an offensive player. If they had LT the decision would have been much tougher. The Texans said Mario was as highly rated to them as Reggie. And DE was much more of a need. So they took him.
Except that DE's are much higher paid than RBs. And look what happened to those teams' success. Absolutely - but it's far easier to do at running back than DE. I wouldn't go that far. Edge outrushed and outreceived LT both of the last two years, averaged more yards-per-catch in both of those years, and overall averaged more yards per carry over that period (though there was a split in the two years). I agree that LT is the generally the better player, but Edge has actually outproduced him. Rudi Johnson had virtually identical rushing stats as LT, and Warrick Dunn gained just 50 fewer rushing yards on 50 fewer carries last year. Running backs are very fickle positions, and highly influenced by the o-line - far more than DE, which is much more of a game-changing position.
Do you have a source for DE and RB salaries? From what I have seen RBs are just behind DEs in terms of salaries. And you can count just as many teams sucking such as when Faulk or Terrell Davis left. Or when someone like Ahman Green broke down. LT is way better than those guys. Just as with DEs, stats do not tell the whole story. QBs may be the most fickle position in terms of needing help but that hardly makes it less important. If you can find some support or article stating that DE's are more important than RBs then maybe I can start to see you have a point, but right now I am highly skeptical.
Usually I'd agree with you but Bush is more than a mere running back. He can play receiver as well as RB and brings breakaway speed to the equation. It's his speed and versatility that commands $7M. And it's speed and versatility that the Texans now lack at the position and that will come back to haunt them in a big way.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=112260 It also mentions salaries: The highest franchise and transition numbers (the average salaries of, respectively, the top five and 10 highest-paid players at each position) belong to quarterbacks, followed by ends, linebackers, offensive linemen, wide receivers and then running backs.
I wonder what numbers he is using because according to this: http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playersbyposition.aspx?pos=12&order=Salary+desc The top 10 RBs get paid an everage salry of 7.31 million while the DES get paid an average of 6.87 million. You can look at the numbers, there isn't much of a gap. I do agree that DE has more impact in general. I don't agree that we should take a lesser player because of salary cap considerations.
not necessarily. the average salary of the texans' 4 RBs is $1.4M; the top 4 DEs: $2.3M. in this scenario, it would seem that, yes indeed, DEs are better compensated than the RBs. except that domanick davis actually makes more individually ($3.81M) than any of the texans' top 4 DEs. and therein lies the glitch - teams start 2 DEs, but only 1 RB. so when averaging out their salaries, DEs are counting two starter-level salaries for every one among RBs, skewering the $$'s in their favor.
What an idiot...Look, a real game hasn't even begun yet...Bush looks horrible, so why now... I'm glad we got the Dream and wouldn't change it for anything...Hell, we had the twin towers there for a little while... Bush is over rated...
You have to admit that the way the Texans have handled everything looks really stupid to the casual fan. What was the reasoning for 'firing' Casserly after the draft? Though the true fans know that he didn't have much input, it just looks bad to fire your GM immediately after the draft.
It's very difficult to replace GMs in the middle of a draft cycle. They've spent the entire NFL calendar year gathering information and scouting reports from both film and in-person scouring jobs, and in an ideal world you wait until after (which they did) to start anew for the new NFL year. If you don't do that, you lose your research and your playbook, so to speak. As for the casual fan, I don't want anything to do with an organization if they run things based on how the casual fan might think. No running back is going to consistently rush for 2,000 yards no matter the system.
