What are you looking for on Thursday??

[WG]

Detroit was about as good as we were last season defensively and they haven't done anything to upgrade.

Given that our D is gonna blow again, what will you be looking for in Thursday's game?

I'll be lookin' to see if Henry gets 12+ runs and can demonstrate some consistency to see how serious Gilbride is at trying to establish some semblance of a run prior to our HO.

I'll also be looking to see if we can score on 2/3 or more of our drives. Whether FGs or TDs, doesn't matter. We need to be able to score quickly, efficiently, and in droves this year in order for this season to be a successful one.

If Henry can't run against Detroit, then we can hang it up vs. most other teams in this league. Same w/ our scoring. After last week, we need a good week even if it is only against the Lions.

And for Pete sakes, let's not give up 250 yards on penalties or allow any 90 yard returns.

Lastly, let's just hope that none of our OL-men or Pat Williams gets hurt. Actually, I leave Henry in and pull Williams, Jennings, and Brown after two series just to be on the safe side. Drew's shown enough too. This offense is only gonna be successful if teams are not allowed to T-off on an immobile Drew. 7 sacks in a tad over 4 Qs of play isn't good. If that were to keep up during the season, then he'll get whacked good at some point. That's the last thing we need!

I say put Brown in after two and leave Henry in to let him prove he really wants the starting job!!

[RedEyE]

My eyes will be primarily on the D. It's time for them to find a solution to filling the holes in that rotten piece of swiss cheese.

Second scrutiny;
The running game in the first half. Henry and company have to get on track with the OL this week. It's imperative that Henry put up at least 35 - 50 yards in the first half before he can begin to convience me that he is Buffalo's new Thurman. As of right now I rate him a solid 6 out 10 (Marshall Faulk being a 10).

Finally,
GWs ability to overcome adversity. Since his start last season he has yet to prove that he can rally the team. Bledsoe and Flethcer's experience will help but won't it cover William's a$$.

[WG]

Actually, as pure rushers go, Faulk really isn't that great. He's an outstanding all-around RB. But there's got to be 6-10 better pure rushers than Faulk.

I'd rate Henry a 4 or 5 right now with an RB like Green or Alexander being a 10. We can argue over that scale for years. But the bottom line is that I haven't been lulled into a media slumber that some have over Henry. Last year he was inconsistent at best and less than average at worst. He has to prove that he can consistently carry the ball for 3-5 YPC. -6 doesn't help us in 999 out of 1,000 cases. Never say never!

If I were GW, I'd leave Henry in and tell him that if he wants to start, to get at least 5 YPC vs. Detroit. That's feasible for any RB let alone for one touted as a guaranteed starter.

[WG]

As to the D, GW/TD have fooled me once. Shame on them. Any more and it's shame on me! We're holdin' out hope that our DL is gonna be any different than it was last season.

I and many others recognized that it would be the same, yet nothing was done b/c GW insisted that the guys we had would be fine even though there was absolutely no reason to believe that!

Statistically, we'll be worse off since we face the toughest corps of RBs that any team could possibly face in one season. Look at the bright side, our games will move quickly and usually be over by 3:50 p.m. as opponents allow their ball carriers to get 40 carries a game effectively.

[RedEyE]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Actually, as pure rushers go, Faulk really isn't that great. He's an outstanding all-around RB. But there's got to be 6-10 better pure rushers than Faulk.

????

Please name him :

Faulk's career:
1994 Ind 314 for 1282
1995 Ind 289 for 1078
1996 Ind 198 for 587 * injured
1997 Ind 264 for 1054
1998 Ind 324 for 1319
1999 StL 253 for 1381
2000 StL 253 for 1359
2001 StL 260 for 1382

[BillC]

Re: What are you looking for on Thursday??

Stewadesses...


I'll be looking for a Stewardess.....

[WG]

But realize that when called upon to rush primarily, he was at Indy where he posted the first bunch of numbers. His production only picked up after he was on a team w/ arguably the most prolific passing production in the history of the league as a general rule.

I don't think too many RBs would have trouble getting 1,300 each year on a team that forces opponents to keep less than 5 players on the line, often only 4 or even 3 most of the time!

Green
Thomas (who as a rookie last year amassed over 1,000 in only 10 games on a team w/ no passing game to balance the O out)
Alexander
Holmes
Martin (Who's done better than Faulk has in pure rushing just about each year of his career)
S. Davis
Dillon
Tomlinson
George

I'd take all of those RBs first for pure rushing over Faulk any day of the week. Again, if you want an all-purpose guy, then I'd still take a few of them over Faulk.

Ya can't make a good argument that any other RB on St. Louis wouldn't do what Faulk does. He has benefitted from their system at least as much as the team has benefitted from his play. All of those RBs listed would probably have much higher rushing outputs and still have significant receiving stats if they were on St. Louis. It's not like the reason that St. Louis is good is b/c of Faulk. Moreso the other way around.

[RedEyE]

I understand your point Wys, but currently no one is as consistent as Faulk. He has been a tremendous back since his rookie season and has yet to let up. Especially if you take a look at his receiving stats as well. Faulk has not only rushed for nearly 1300 yards each season he has also averaged 680 receiving yards annualy. Until another back can dethrone him, Marshall remains my choice.

[casdhf]

Alot of those guys listed have only had 1 good year?

[WG]

"currently no one is as consistent as Faulk."

Currently no one plays on a team that gives Faulk the advantages that he gets!

I'll take Curtis Martin any day of the week over Faulk. He's done more w/ less for his entire career.

Faulk averaged only 3.8 ypc during his first 5 seasons in the league. His played only elevated once he got to St. Louis.

Martin's worst year, rushing wise, was better than 3 of Faulk's seasons. Faulk's best season, rushing wise, was worse than Martin's best 3.

Martin has been immensely more consistent and both have averaged, again, rushing, about the same number of TDs annually as the other. The exception of course is that Faulk has the privilege of playing on the offensively gifted Rams.

Can you imagine Faulk on the Jets and Pats. All I've heard about the Pats during this offseason is how horrible their OL was. Yet, in spite of having a terrible OL, particularly a rushing OL, Martin still managed to do what he did.

Faulk's numbers over full seasons at Indy don't say much to me:

1282 4.1 11
1078 3.7 11
587 3.0 7
1054 4.0 7
1319 4.1 6

That's an average of just over 1,000 yards, 8 TDs, and a 3.8 ypc avg. in spite of being the #1 ball carrier indisputably.

I don't think that's all that marvelous! Do you?

Meanwhile, if you swapped Faulk for Martin, I pretty much guarantee you that Martin would yield the exact same thing in the Rams' system. He may not have quite as many receiving yards although I think he would due to the design of the system. But I would all but guarantee you that he'd have a significantly greater rushing production. I'd say in the 1,500-2,000 yard range.

[WG]

cas,

Most of those guys haven't been in the league long enough to have had more than one good year. The ones who have been, haven't been given the opportunity to start early on.

[WG]

George, Dillon, Alexander, Green, Tomlinson, Thomas I'm sure would tear things up if they could be on the Rams.

[RedEyE]

LOL. Listen, you not going to change my mind no matter how many stats and backs you post. I firmly beleive that Faulk is currently the best RB in the NFL. I'm not down grading any other back that you have mentioned. This is simply just my opinion.
My original point was that Henry is obvioulsly nowhere near the same classification of Marshall Faulk. I rate Henry a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, considering Faulk is a 10.

[shelby]

i am looking for fewer than 13 penalties.

[casdhf]

and more than 1 TD?