Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Dominick Davis


Ralph Furley
 Share

Recommended Posts

FF value is in the toilet but this will be good for him. The entire league respects him, nobody will blame him for losing the job/splitting carries and he'll have far less wear and tear on his body (with the same paycheck). Eventually this will help him to prolong his career a year or three.

Edited by Voltaire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're probably right, it is a lower percentage, but you have to be a darn good tackle to get drafted in the top 10.  Outside the top 10 there are quite a few busts at tackle.  Some of the guys taken in the top 10 as a LT have been moved, like Robert Gallery.  I've heard that Ferguson is good, but he is not as highly rated as Bush.  The current champs, the Steelers got their LT in the second round.  The Pats got Matt Light in the second round.  The Bucs took Oben in the third.  So of the last 5 SB winning teams, none have had an elite LT.  If I felt Ferguson was another Tony Boselli, Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Willie Roaf, or Jonathan Ogden, I might agree.  But no scout is comparing him to those guys.  Most of the write-ups I've seen seem to feel there is a significant drop in talent after Bush.

 

1323207[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, first of all, I'm not "probably right". I was just stating a fact (supported by almost every NFL guy you can talk to), so I'm definitely right. :D

 

Secondly, if you're going to use the SuperBowl-Champion argument, then you need to use the same rationale to support Reggie Bush. Did any of those teams take a running back high in the first round? No. So should I conclude that Reggie Bush won't help a team win the SuperBowl? Of course not. That argument isn't up to your standards, Captain.

 

The only way to measure positional worth in the draft is by the factors I mentioned. If everything else is equal: 1. How long (on average) will that player play for your team? and 2. What are the chances (historically) that the player will be a "bust"?

 

For whatever reason, the skills needed to be a dominant OT in college are the same skills needed to succeed at the next level as well. Every other position is a distant second in the "bust factor" category.

 

They are bad at pass blocking. They ranked 15th in the NFL in rushing yards, ahead of Indianapolis. They rushed for over 1800 yards as a team.

 

1323207[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly. That's why they need Ferguson, not Bush. Glad to see you're coming around. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first of all, I'm not "probably right". I was just stating a fact (supported by almost every NFL guy you can talk to), so I'm definitely right. :D

 

1324067[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Actually, I was looking back through the top 10 picks in each draft since '89, and there weren't many busts at RB as I thought there were. I don't think you can factor in injuries, so I didn't count Ki-Jana Carter and Tim Biakabutuka as "busts". And I didn't count Tommy Vardell, since he was a FB. Since '89, the only top 10 busts IMO at RB have been Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, and Blair Thomas. Some might include Garrison Hearst and Thomas Jones, but they have gone on to have productive careers, just not with the team that drafted them (not surprisingly, both the Cardinals).

 

So, since '89, three major busts at RB in the top ten. And two at tackle (Mike Williams and Mandarich, although I think you'd have a strong argument for Antone Davis and Charles McRae). Plus throw in a few other guys who could not handle being a left tackle and had to move to right tackle or guard (Gallery, Leonard Davis, Charles McRae, Leon Searcy). Ray Roberts didn't have a stellar career either. Not as big a difference as I thought there would be. I also did not factor in injuries for tackles either, as Kyle Turley and Boselli both had excellent careers cut short and did not play as long as you would hope.

 

Barry Sanders, Jerome Bettis, Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Jamal Lewis, and Ladainian Tomlinson were all top 10 picks at RB in that time frame.

 

Richmond Webb, Willie Roaf, Lincoln Kennedy, Jonathan Ogden, Willie Anderson, Orlando Pace, and Walter Jones were all top 10 picks at T in that time frame.

Edited by CaptainHook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, if you're going to use the SuperBowl-Champion argument, then you need to use the same rationale to support Reggie Bush. Did any of those teams take a running back high in the first round? No. So should I conclude that Reggie Bush won't help a team win the SuperBowl? Of course not. That argument isn't up to your standards, Captain.

 

1324067[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:D Jerome Bettis was a top 10 pick. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly the optimistic view of the situation.

 

1. How many good-great years are you going to get out of Reggie Bush? 6-7, tops. How many good-great years will you get out of D. Ferguson? 10-11.

 

1323143[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Interesting tidbit. Oilers draft Campbell in 1977, next 4 years they go 39-25, 61% wins. However, what people always fail to discuss is that in the three years prior to Campbell, the Oilers were 23-19, 55% wins. 1982, fifth season after the Campbell draft, Oilers are 1-8 (strike year). 1982 to 1983 Oilers go 6 -35, 15% wins. I982, Oilers draft G Mike Munchak #8 overall, 1983, Oilers draft G Bruce Mathews #9 overall, 1984 Oilers draft Dean Steinkuhler #2 overall. 1985 & 1956 Oilers are 5-11 bother years. Then 1987 to 1993 Oilers go 70-41, 7 years with a 63 win %, and never below 9 wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's look at it from the other perspective, like I suggested before.

 

Top* active OTs NOT drafted in the first round:

 

M. Smith

M. Light

R. Oben

C. Clifton

M. Lepsis

 

 

Top* active RBs NOT drafted in the first round:

 

T. Barber

C. Portis (2nd)

W. Parker (UFA)

C. Dillon (2nd)

D. Davis (4th)

C. Martin (3rd)

R. Johnson (4th)

B. Westbrook (3rd)

L. Jordan (2nd)

T. Bell (2nd)

M. Anderson (5th?)

D. Foster (2nd)

C. Brown (3rd)

 

* "Top" just means the team is happy with the player at his position -- not necessarily looking for an upgrade (unless for injury-related reasons).

 

I'm not making a bold statement here, Captain. It's become common knowledge that it's easier to find a solid starting RB than a solid starting LT. It's both directly and indirectly related to the draft. Why have Edge and SA been on the open market for the last two years? Why have Ogden, Pace, and Jones been with their teams their entire career. Once you have a franchise LT, you just don't let him go. It screws up the offense too much. Franchise RBs are easier to replace.

 

The Texans have not one, not two, but THREE running backs who have shown the ability to succeed in the NFL. This argument just comes down to how "special" you believe Reggie Bush is. I think he'll be a great player (barring injury); I also think Ferguson will be a great player. Those two things equal AND factoring in team needs AND number of years I'd get out of each player AND knowing how well blocking skills translate from college to NFL, I'd take Ferguson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting tidbit.  Oilers draft Campbell in 1977, next 4 years they go 39-25, 61% wins.  However, what people always fail to discuss is that in the three years prior to Campbell, the Oilers were 23-19, 55% wins.  1982, fifth season after the Campbell draft, Oilers are 1-8 (strike year).  1982 to 1983 Oilers go 6 -35, 15% wins.  I982, Oilers draft G Mike Munchak #8 overall, 1983, Oilers draft G Bruce Mathews #9 overall, 1984 Oilers draft Dean Steinkuhler #2 overall.  1985 & 1956 Oilers are 5-11 bother years.  Then 1987 to 1993 Oilers go 70-41, 7 years with a 63 win %, and never below 9 wins.

 

1324228[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Very good points. I'm of the opinion, that regardless of what you have at the skill positions, you are not going to be effective consistently on offense until you assemble a solid offensive line. Then once the line is assembled, it takes at least a year for them to become a cohesive unit. Offensive lineman have to work together, and the more they play together, the more they begin to anticipate what the other lineman is thinking and is going to do if the defense does any last second pre-snap changes. I'll bring up the Steelers, because that is who I know the most about, and I can say without question, that one of the reasons they are consistently good is that they always put an emphasis on having a solid offensive line, and they try their best to keep them together.

 

This, in my opinion, is why the Texans need to start building that offensive line up before worrying about having a Bush-Davis tandem in the backfield. Try to get someone solid at 11 positions before trying to have to extreme talents at one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not by the Steelers, smartass. :D

 

1324243[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Steelers 2nd & 4th Rounder to the Rams for Bettis & 3rd Rounder ( I think I remember that one right)

 

Not many trades have been bigger steals than that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making a bold statement here, Captain. It's become common knowledge that it's easier to find a solid starting RB than a solid starting LT.

 

1324241[/snapback]

 

 

 

And I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just thought it was interesting to look back. I don't think you can say, "Well, tackles have the lowest rate of being a bust, so let's take a tackle." If you evaluate the players and find them close, then maybe you do that. But somebody is going to have to give up a first and/or second round pick to move up to get Bush. Why? Because they feel he is a more special player than Ferguson.

 

Just a few years ago, all the draft experts said the safest pick in the draft was Robert Gallery. Draft him, plug him in at LT for 10 years. I'm not saying he's bad, but he hasn't played LT yet in his career, has he? You could have taken Larry Fitzgerald. Or Ben Roethlisberger. DeAngelo Hall. Jonathan Vilma. I'd rather have any one of those guys than Gallery. Sometimes the safest pick isn't the "best" pick.

Edited by CaptainHook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't necessarily disagree with you.  I just thought it was interesting to look back.  I don't think you can say, "Well, tackles have the lowest rate of being a bust, so let's take a tackle."  If you evaluate the players and find them close, then maybe you do that.  But somebody is going to have to give up a first and/or second round pick to move up to get Bush.  Why?  Because they feel he is a more special player than Ferguson.

 

1324274[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree that it was an interesting look back and, to be honest, I appreciated the info you revealed. And, no, the "low-bust rate" shouldn't be the only consideration when drafting a player.

 

However, I disagree with your second statement. A team would give up picks to move up and select Bush because he helps their team more than Ferguson. Bush would make the Packers or Jets WAAAY better than Ferguson would. Helping your team is what the draft is all about and that's the main reason I believe the Texans should target Ferguson.

 

Just a few years ago, all the draft experts said the safest pick in the draft was Robert Gallery.  Draft him, plug him in at LT for 10 years.  I'm not saying he's bad, but he hasn't played LT yet in his career, has he?  You could have taken Larry Fitzgerald.  Or Ben Roethlisberger. DeAngelo Hall. Jonathan Vilma.  I'd rather have any one of those guys than Gallery.  Sometimes the safest pick isn't the "best" pick.

 

1324274[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Fair point, but the only reason Gallery didn't play LT right away is because Barry Stokes was playing at a high level until 2005. The Raiders decided Gallery could play a different position -- and upgrade that position -- better than Stokes. Given the play of the O-line since then, the jury is out on that decision, but I have no doubt Gallery will play LT next year and will be highly successful for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I disagree with your second statement. A team would give up picks to move up and select Bush because he helps their team more than Ferguson. Bush would make the Packers or Jets WAAAY better than Ferguson would. Helping your team is what the draft is all about and that's the main reason I believe the Texans should target Ferguson.

 

1324344[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think you have to take the best possible player on the board. If you can trade down, do it. But it's getting harder and harder to do, especially early in the draft order. Surely you realize that Bush has more "value" than Ferguson? And not just from teams that need an RB. Teams would not offer nearly what it would take to move up to take Bush ( judging by the Eli Manning trade) to get Ferguson (judging by the Winslow II trade) which would be the standard GM's would go by.

Edited by CaptainHook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, the only example I can think of that illustrates the Texans taking D'Brickshaw Ferguson over Reggie Bush would be Sam Bowie.

 

1324890[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

As much as I am big on going offensive and defensive line in the 1st round, if the Texans can not trade down at that pick (which IMO is what they should try to do) they HAVE to take Bush. as much as it would hurt me to do it, you just cannot let someone else get the overall consenses number 1 pick as the number 2 pick. either they pay for the pick or you take Bush. I think they can find someone to pay for it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, thats exactly what I'm saying......if they trade down, even for some great package, they will still be the team we look back on after ten years of misery as the team that traded the rights to Reggie Bush.

 

So the Texans trade down to 4 and get D'Brick instead of Bush. He could have a good career. We will still compare him to Sam Bowie. It would be tragic for the future of the Houston Texans. And I LOVE D'Brickshaw Ferguson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, thats exactly what I'm saying......if they trade down, even for some great package, they will still be the team we look back on after ten years of misery as the team that traded the rights to Reggie Bush. 

 

So the Texans trade down to 4 and get D'Brick instead of Bush.  He could have a good career.  We will still compare him to Sam Bowie.  It would be tragic for the future of the Houston Texans.  And I LOVE D'Brickshaw Ferguson

 

1324966[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That might be the case, but, they have more NEED at offensive line. If they think Reggie Bush is the next Michael Jordan, then the answer is simple, trade Domanick Davis for picks or an Offensive Lineman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be the case, but, they have more NEED at offensive line.  If they think Reggie Bush is the next Michael Jordan, then the answer is simple, trade Domanick Davis for picks or an Offensive Lineman.

 

1325299[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what the Texans should do, but they won't get anything for DD. If Edge and SA aren't getting teams to line up for their services, then DD won't be worth much at all. Maybe a 4th round pick at best. Besides, no team is going to give up a quality lineman for a RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what the Texans should do, but they won't get anything for DD.  If Edge and SA aren't getting teams to line up for their services, then DD won't be worth much at all.  Maybe a 4th round pick at best.  Besides, no team is going to give up a quality lineman for a RB.

 

1325355[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You might be right, but DD isn't going to require as much $$$ as Alexander or Edge. I think DD is making like 4 Million per. Zia, do you know what DD's contract is ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texans signed Davis to a five year contract extension on August 6, 2005. The deal, which replaces the final year of his original three-year contract and runs through 2009, is worth $22 million, according to ESPN, and includes $8 million in guarantees.

 

He's cheap enough to keep around as a back-up.

Edited by CaptainHook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texans signed Davis to a five year contract extension on August 6, 2005. The deal, which replaces the final year of his original three-year contract and runs through 2009, is worth $22 million, according to ESPN, and includes $8 million in guarantees.

 

He's cheap enough to keep around as a back-up.

1325499[/snapback]

 

Yes, but, also cheap enough that he might hold value to other teams. I think what it all comes down to, is you don't see Dominick Davis as being all that talented of a back, and I do. I think what he has done behind a below-average offensive line is very impressive. The Texans have a lot of needs, and having both Dominic Davis and Reggie Bush in the backfield would be a nice luxury, but, they would be better off using one of them to improve other spots on their team, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but, also cheap enough that he might hold value to other teams.  I think what it all comes down to, is you don't see Dominick Davis as being all that talented of a back, and I do.  I think what he has done behind a below-average offensive line is very impressive.  The Texans have a lot of needs, and having both Dominic Davis and Reggie Bush in the backfield would be a nice luxury, but, they would be better off using one of them to improve other spots on their team, imho.

 

1325644[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

But if they take Bush, they need to have a decent back-up. Bush has never had to handle all the carries at USC. That is the knock on him. Why trade Davis, who although injury prone, does have talent? There is no way they trade DD this year. If Bush proves to be what some think he will, then they could trade him down the line. But having 2 quality backs is something a lot of NFL teams do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if they take Bush, they need to have a decent back-up.  Bush has never had to handle all the carries at USC.  That is the knock on him.  Why trade Davis, who although injury prone, does have talent?  There is no way they trade DD this year.  If Bush proves to be what some think he will, then they could trade him down the line.  But having 2 quality backs is something a lot of NFL teams do now.

 

1325846[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm not arguing this point either way, but the Texans do have Wells and Morancy (sp?)...I think they'd be okay with regard to RB depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing this point either way, but the Texans do have Wells and Morancy (sp?)...I think they'd be okay with regard to RB depth.

 

1325856[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I like Wells, but he's a bit flaky. Didn't he retire once already to pursue his "rap career"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information