Well I doubt the gameplan was to "contain" Clark to 14 grabs for 119, and I think if not for a couple Bernad Pollard interceptions you're talking about another defensive meltdown rather than lamenting a Kris Brown field goal.
Well I think the Texans should at least give him a look. I'm pretty much with moes in thinking that he now sucks, but it could just be that he isn't motivated in Kansas City and needs new scenery. I think the Moss situation is a damn good comparison. There is no way Larry Johnson could be old and washed up physically. Unmotivated, yes, but I think if he really wanted to put forth the effort he could be one of the top backs in the league based on physical talent alone. The guy is mental, but maybe a new scene would do him well. I'm thinking the Pats would be a match made in heaven for him and them right now. He'd be disciplined by Brady/Moss/Belicheck and they need a RB. LJ to New England? That's my prediction.
Patriots | Unlikely to land L. Johnson Comment (0) Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:45:32 -0800 Adam Kilgore, of The Boston Globe, reports New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick was asked during his weekly appearance on WEEI if the team would consider brining in free-agent RB Larry Johnson. Belichick said, "I would doubt it." http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl#609425
i'll respectfully disagree. 11 of those were in the first half; holding clark and wayne to 8 ypc was indeed, i'm sure, part of the game plan. what does this even mean? the game of IFs is pretty laborious and unending; if the texans don't commit as many penalties, if moats doesn't fumble, if brown makes an ordinarily fairly routine FG..........
Simply using a hypothetical as relevant to the topic of "holding" Clark to 8.5 ypc. Colts moved the ball fairly easy with Clark between the 20s, as is usually done with a good running back. His first half output was enormous, but Manning I believe had 40 attempts at the half which is a staggering statistic considering he didn't have a touchdown pass. Texans controlled the ball for an enormous amount of time in the 3rd quarter, which quite obviously kept Manning off the field. Their supposed "containment" of Clark was only highlighted as a good strategy because of the Pollard interception of Manning before the end of the half, and subsequent 2nd interception on a curious attempt by Reggie Wayne. If you take away those stellar defensive plays, you're talking about a minimum of 6 more points on the board, rendering the supposed "containment" of Clark as a useless victory since it still resulted in a loss. As I said before, the bigger victory was clearly not letting Wayne get free for anything deeper.
hold up - as often happens in these interweb squabbles, i think we've ventured WAY off course. i initially responded to your assertion that the texans were getting shredded by TEs; you cited vernon davis and dallas clark as recent examples. dallas clark came into sunday's game averaging 12.7 ypc; vernon davis scored 3 TDs against the texans. yesterday, the texans held clark to 4 fewer yards per catch than his average and no TDs. i know "14 receptions" screams a shredding on the surface, and he certainly had a productive day - but it wasn't *as* productive as he's capable, nor was it *as* productive as davis' day. you can argue a TE shredded the texans after they had built a 21-point lead and took their foot off the pedal, i guess - but i'm not sure i'd call clark's day sunday a "shredding." what? we should assume had the texans not made several key defensive plays at a very specific point... that they would have made none altogether and the colts would have certainly scored? why are you assuming certain scores on a day the colts struggled to score?.... uhm, yeah - take away the deep stuff and - wait for it: contain clark. they were willing to let him catch a million balls underneath as long as he didn't get behind anyone. given that he averaged 4 fewer yards a catch AND wayne was a virtual non-factor deep... their game plan was actually successful.
Squabbles? This is me being civil. Admittedly, I'm way off course with my last example. Just seemed a bit odd to assert that Clark was "held in check" when he by all accounts had a pretty ridiculous day. I was just merely trying to point out that even giving up all those short throws was still a pretty effective way of the Colts moving the football down the field, but I digress.
Yes you're right there is a huge difference, but LJ has to have something left in the tank because he really only played 2 full seasons I believe.
oh, it's definitely been an interesting back and forth. see? there's our agree-to-disagree moment: he caught a ridiculous # of balls; but he didn't necessarily do a whole heck of a lot after that. you're never, ever going to completely shut that offense down. my guess - only guess - is that the texans will take 8.5 ypc, 0 TDs and 20 total points - in indianapolis - every single day of the week. IOW, some of his "shredding" was purposefully allowed by houston because a) they were more concerned with shutting down longer, deeper plays down field; and b) they were able to bottle clark up effectively once he caught his 14 balls.
The bend-but-don't-break nature of this seems more logical when you consider it led to the interceptions that put Houston in position to send the game into overtime. Schaub made a clutch 4th down throw to Johnson, moved the ball when he needed to. Texans don't need Larry Johnson to beat the Colts.
an interesting interview from the Dan Patrick show about an hour ago. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/da...11/10/DP-Larry_Johnson-11-10-09_Interview.mp3 I normally think Dan Patrick is a tool, but he asked all the question I wanted answers to. LJ seemed to say all the right things and he sounds sincere. I still dont think I want him on the Texans but, I think LJ knows he really screwed up bad and knows what he has to do to get back on the field and stay on the field.
while this may be true, when the Texans played the Cards and the Jags, I kept thinking how nice it would be if they had LJ in the backfield to fly over the goal line al la multiple oakland raiders games. again, I'm not sure if I want LJ on the Texans, but Chris Brown? there is only so much you can blame on an oline.
nothing fascinating Texans evaluating controversial running back Larry Johnson by Juanita Jimenez Posted on November 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM HOUSTON – The Houston Texans owner Bob McNair told 11 News Tuesday morning they are evaluating the status of controversial running back Larry Johnson. McNair’s comments come despite Johnson’s well publicized off-the-field problems. The Texans owner isn’t denying the team’s interest in Johnson. “Number one can he help our team as a football player, and number two can he fit in with our team,” said McNair. Texans safety Bernard Pollard said he would welcome his former Kansas City teammate. “Larry is a great guy. He’s just been misunderstood, and when given a second chance, I know he’ll take full advantage of it,” said Pollard. When asked if the team was perusing Johnson, head coach Gary Kubiak said, “General Manager Rick smith evaluates all available personnel and he is in charge of that.” The 5 and 4 Texans are averaging less than 100 yards per game running. did anybody catch Ted Deluca's comments on 790 just now? he said that Bob McNair said something to the effect of "if LJ has the right personnal around him, he can succeed" and that he feels LJ deserves "a second chance" interesting.
I'd like to see the Texans get him and condition him to be their #1 every down back and then put Slaton in a 3rd down type Reggie Bush role.
that has nothing to do with what I posted or even the point I was trying to make, but thanks for the brilliant reply.
I disagree. I didn't think McNair would even think twice about it. I'm surprised he's considering it at all, frankly. That, in and of itself, is fascinating. I wouldn't mind bringing him in. If he can hold onto the ball inside the 5 yard line, we're already ahead of the curve...
maybe 8 years of losing has softened his stance on the type of player he wants to bring in? yea, I thought it was a little suprising, but seemed like a rather cliche response.
Vomit. Really, have you seen this guy play in the last three years? Unless there is a hole 5 yards wide, he's not going to get more than 3 yards.
