Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;763853]I agree with you but to be fair Arian Foster wasn't a backup in college.[/quote]

You're right Foster did have 1.5 seasons when he was the [I][B]main[/B][/I] 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.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=30gut;763850]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!
:food-smil[/quote]

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.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=30gut;763857]You're right Foster did have 1.5 seasons when he was the [I][B]main[/B][/I] 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.[/quote]

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

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;763861]You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.[/quote]

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

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;763861]You just put Arian Foster in the same sentence as Keiland Williams. Conversation over.[/quote]

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

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=SmootSmack;763871]Would you have said the same thing based on Foster's rookie numbers vs. Williams' rookie numbers?[/quote]

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.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=30gut;764141]Logic like yours makes it even more clear that this was never a real conversation to begin with.[/quote]


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

Case closed.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;764231]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.[/quote]

And he had Kyle Shanahan as his offensive coordinator! But anyhow, Foster did nothing Until the end of the season (and I'm not sure who the Pats even had playing the last week) but anyway I'm not saying KW is going to be a beast but I do think it's way too early to just close the book on him when you clearly didn't for Foster

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=SmootSmack;764243]And he had Kyle Shanahan as his offensive coordinator! But anyhow, Foster did nothing Until the end of the season (and I'm not sure who the Pats even had playing the last week) but anyway I'm not saying KW is going to be a beast but I do think it's way too early to just close the book on him when you clearly didn't for Foster[/quote]

There are a couple of big differences. Williams wasn't even good enough to start on his college team and, more importantly, Williams is playing because of injuries. Foster won that job by the end of the year through his hard work and then never looked back.

Willams is the starter by default and now it looks like a guy off the street may take his job. I am not closing the book on KW, I am just standing by my original statement. He is a practice squad back or 3rd stringer at best. There is nothing wrong with that but I don't want to hear how we lost last Sunday's game because we didn't force carries to Keiland Williams. That is delusional.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;764231]but if anyone actually thinks that Keiland Williams is a good back there is no hope for them.[/quote]
Why? Because he was on the practice squad?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.

Let me remind you what i said:

[quote=30gut;763647]You have to run the ball with the RBs more then 9 times.
We have no idea how the running game would have panned out if we actually tried to run the ball.
We're an outside zone/outside edge running team (and the Vikings run weakness is on the edge w/ their Jared Allen and a back-up! LDE) yet we ran inside w/ our least experienced RB: James Davis when Keiland Williams was perfectly healthy.
But it either way 6 carries for James Davis and 3 carries for Keiland Williams is not enough to establish a running game.[/quote]

[quote]He didn't deserve more carries against the Vikings. If he had had 30 carries he wouldn't have broken 75 yards.[/quote]

Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually [B][I]makes[/I][/B] my point.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;764233]68 yards on 23 carries against the titans.
5 yards on 3 carries against the vikings.

Case closed.[/quote]

And yet again you make my point.

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=30gut;764380]Why? Because he was on the practice squad?
You know there are a bunch of backs, good backs that came off the practice squad right?
And where did i say anything about what type of back Keiland is good or bad?
The most i said was that he was the most experienced of the 2 backs we had available.

Let me remind you what i said:





Your argument is all over the place and your post above clearly shows you are missing my point.
We didn't need nor did i say Keiland would have rushed for 100 yards.
No.
I'm saying something quite simple.
Regardless of the RB an offense makes thing harder on itself when they abandon the run.
That's all i've been saying.
Even if you think Keiland is the worst RB on earth, quiting on the run is always the wrong move.
The stat line from your post would have been enough of a semblance of running game to prevent the Packers defense from focusing on the passing game only.
Your post actually [B][I]makes[/I][/B] my point.



Again this more fluff.
And technically Foster was a part time starter himself.
Either way it has nothing to do with my point.



And yet again you make my point.[/quote]


"But with [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/sectionfront/schedule.html"][COLOR=#0c4790]five games remaining in the season[/COLOR][/URL], a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106308.html"]Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere[/URL]

Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol

The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.

Is that clear enough for you?

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;764255]There are a couple of big differences. Williams wasn't even good enough to start on his college team and, more importantly, Williams is playing because of injuries. Foster won that job by the end of the year through his hard work and then never looked back.

Willams is the starter by default and now it looks like a guy off the street may take his job. I am not closing the book on KW, I am just standing by my original statement. He is a practice squad back or 3rd stringer at best. There is nothing wrong with that but I don't want to hear how we lost last Sunday's game because we didn't force carries to Keiland Williams. That is delusional.[/quote]

The knock on Foster was his work ethic. And there were times where KW started for LSU. But for the most part he split carries with Charles Scott his last 2 years and backed up Jacob Hester his first two. Dwayne Jarrett started in college and you saw how that worked. Just because someone doesnt start in college doesnt mean crap

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;764539]"But with [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/longterm/sectionfront/schedule.html"][COLOR=#0c4790]five games remaining in the season[/COLOR][/URL], a closer look at Shanahan's own history reveals just how woefully behind the Washington rushing game appears to be".

[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106308.html"]Heading into the Giants game, the Redskins are running the ball - and going nowhere[/URL]

Does this article in the Washington Post back up your point too? lol

The more you type, the more wrong you get. THIS TEAM CANNOT RUN THE BALL, THAT IS WHY THE COACHES ARE ABANDONING IT.

Is that clear enough for you?[/quote]

Is this how you carry on in every discussion when you're struggling to make or prove your point?

LoL, do you even understand my point?
And what is [I]your[/I] point?
B/c Kyle abandons the run it makes it the right decision?
Same as playing Joey Galloway, same as not playing Fred Davis?
C'mon.
We shouldn't [I][B]attempt[/B][/I] to run the ball b/c we're not good at it?
You know how you set up play-action?
You run the ball.
You know how you keep the defense from focusing on the pass?
You run the ball.
You don't even need to run the ball well.
Heck, sometimes play-action works better when the defense is having success stopping the run.

[quote=Shanahan]"It's an emphasis here. Always will be....If you take a look at my history, I think it speaks for itself."[/quote]

But guess what his son has been doing?
[quote=The article you mentioned, did you read it?]This year's Redskins team is [B][I][U][COLOR="DarkOrange"]averaging 22.5 [/COLOR][/U][/I][/B]carries per game. Shanahan's Denver teams averaged 30.6 carries per game.[/quote]

Okay, lets forget this arguement b/c you don't understand it.
But let me ask you this:
If we stick to the run and are able to win a game would that make a difference to you?

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

Nice knowing you Keiland Williams. A guy who was washing cars two weeks ago is ten times better than you.

So who actually said Williams deserved more carries last week?! <crickets>

Re: Where was Keiland Williams???
 

I still stand by that and James Davis hasn't done anything either.