Where was Keiland Williams???

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You can do whatever you like.
But when you say that we can't run the ball against the Vikings my reply is 9 carries is not enough to know.


You're begging the point the Bears OL is suspect its worse then our OL.
But they actually tried to run the ball.
I'm not saying Keiland Williams and James Davis are on the same level as Forte/Chester Taylor but Williams has shown well in his limited appearances.
And Williams have shown that he can put his head down and churn out some tough yards not unlike Toby Gerhart.

If you want to write off our RBs because of game where they had 6 and 3 carries a piece your more then welcome

But, it just isn't logical.



So?
Kevin Sheehan is a man with an opinion no different then you or me.
I would argue that i would give Sheehan a run for his money when it comes to football.

I am writing off our running game based off of an 11 game body of work along with the fact that we are now dealing with a banged up line and our 3rd and 4th running backs. To think that we have a legitimate running game with these pieces isn't logical.

Keiland Williams is a band-aid, not a bell cow. I wish he was the next T. Davis but it isn't happening.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I am writing off our running game based off of an 11 game body of work along with the fact that we are now dealing with a banged up line and our 3rd and 4th running backs. To think that we have a legitimate running game with these pieces isn't logical.

Even if in your view we don't have a 'legitimate running game' the answer isn't to stop trying.
That is not sound football logic.
Wether you're having early success or not you've got to run the ball.
You have to find ways to make your running game work.
That's the job of the coaches.
That's one aspect of Kyle's gameplanning and playcalling that irks me.
He is quick to give up on the run.
Even going back to the Texans, Kyle's offenses didn't run the ball well and now that Kyle's gone they have one of the top running games in the league led by Arian Foster a college back-up RB from their practice squad.

When your RBs get 9 carries over the course of an entire game its a mistake.
If you think giving up on the run is sound football logic then we have nothing more to discuss.


HTTR!

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Even if in your view we don't have a 'legitimate running game' the answer isn't to stop trying.
That is not sound football logic.
Wether you're having early success or not you've got to run the ball.
You have to find ways to make your running game work.
That's the job of the coaches.
That's one aspect of Kyle's gameplanning and playcalling that irks me.
He is quick to give up on the run.
Even going back to the Texans, Kyle's offenses didn't run the ball well and now that Kyle's gone they have one of the top running games in the league led by Arian Foster a college back-up RB from their practice squad.

When your RBs get 9 carries over the course of an entire game its a mistake.
If you think giving up on the run is sound football logic then we have nothing more to discuss.


HTTR!

I agree with you but to be fair Arian Foster wasn't a backup in college.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I agree with you but to be fair Arian Foster wasn't a backup in college.

You're right Foster did have 1.5 seasons when he was the main guy but much like Keiland he was often part of a committee.

Foster went from being the main guy of a trio (879yds) as a freshmen to being the 3rd guy of a trio (322yds) as a sophmore behind LaMarcus Cocker and some other dude then as junior year he started off sharing w/Montario Hardesty but finished as the main guy and went beastmode (1193yds). His senior year (570 yds)shared the backfield w/ Hardesty and Creer.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You're right Foster did have 1.5 seasons when he was the main guy but much like Keiland he was often part of a committee.

Foster went from being the main guy of a trio (879yds) as a freshmen to being the 3rd guy of a trio (322yds) as a sophmore behind LaMarcus Cocker and some other dude then as junior year he started off sharing w/Montario Hardesty but finished as the main guy and went beastmode (1193yds). His senior year (570 yds)shared the backfield w/ Hardesty and Creer.

You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.

Would you have said the same thing based on Foster's rookie numbers vs. Williams' rookie numbers?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Would you have said the same thing based on Foster's rookie numbers vs. Williams' rookie numbers?

I saw Fosters numbers at the end of the season last year and that is why I drafted him in the 4th round in 3 of my fantasy leagues.

4.8 per rush and a 19 for 97 1 touch and 20 for 119 and 2 touches to finish the season with 2 wins. We are talking about delivering as the feature back in two wins, not garbage time against Philly who had already scored 40 plus points or whatever the hell it was when he put up his fraudulent numbers. And I don't want to hear about the titans game where he averaged 3 yards a carry.

I know there are a lot of jokers on this board that would argue with me if I said the sky was blue but if anyone actually thinks that Keiland Williams is a good back there is no hope for them. He didn't deserve more carries against the Vikings. If he had had 30 carries he wouldn't have broken 75 yards. He is a practice squad runningback who couldn't even start for his college team.

Nothing more, nothing less. He probably won't even make the team next year.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.

Logic like yours makes it even more clear that this was never a real conversation to begin with.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Logic like yours makes it even more clear that this was never a real conversation to begin with.

68 yards on 23 carries against the titans.
5 yards on 3 carries against the vikings.

Case closed.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Even if in your view we don't have a 'legitimate running game' the answer isn't to stop trying.
That is not sound football logic.
Wether you're having early success or not you've got to run the ball.
You have to find ways to make your running game work.
That's the job of the coaches.
That's one aspect of Kyle's gameplanning and playcalling that irks me.
He is quick to give up on the run.
Even going back to the Texans, Kyle's offenses didn't run the ball well and now that Kyle's gone they have one of the top running games in the league led by Arian Foster a college back-up RB from their practice squad.

When your RBs get 9 carries over the course of an entire game its a mistake.
If you think giving up on the run is sound football logic then we have nothing more to discuss.


HTTR!

I am not arguing the philosophy of needing a running game but the runningbacks averaged 1.7 and 1.8 yards respectively and we were playing catchup for almost all of the second half. Again, we are dealing with practice squad runningbacks.

I just don't know what situations additional carries would have been appropriate or actually made a difference. Hindsight is 50/50 but even if we could have broken a big run, Rabach would have held someone on it.