RB dept. : Leon Washington ~ ~ ~

I see both Barlow and Blaylock as stop-gap, temporary fill-ins whose days are probably numbered. Next year we'll draft ourselves a legitimate RB whose style will depend on how Houston and Washington's styles progress this year.

I'd personally love to see a Brandon Jacobs-type clone as a changeup to the 5' 8", 202-lb. Washington. Then we'd have a running attack that really keeps defenders off-guard.

 

My thoughts too. Blaylock DOES do that happy feet thing.

 

i'd be very satisfied with drafting a stud and keeping Washington and Houston as the other two.

thing is, WHEN do we do this? next year or the year after?

the way i see it, build the OL even more, get the players for a dominant D, then draft the stud the following year (as there's a few in every draft) once the rest of the pieces are in place to make a serious run.



cheers

 

But as far as I could see, so did Leon. He's too undecisive, runs left-to right a bit, and doesn't hit holes. I don't care how fast he is, if he fails to hit the holes, he's useless to us. Look at Houston on his TD run--right to the hole. Thats what we need.

 

Tangini has been pretty good so far with trades too, so maybe the ideal RB is out there somewhere wanting to come to the Jets. The more we look like winners, the more talent might be interested in coming here.

I could see Houston, Washington and a Brandon Jacobs kinda thing working.

 

i guess that could work. but ideally, you want a feature back. i'm just wondering when we go for that -- next year or the year after?

i'm of the opinion that you get all the pieces to make a Superbowl Run, then you add the RB to carry you to the Promise Land. personally, i feel that's in two years once we've completed the OL and built a dominant D.

one can argue that having a rookie RB isn't such a good idea to make a run but it can work if you factor in: (a) Washington and Houston will be vets by then, and (b) by the time the post-season arrives, that rookie RB isn't a wide-eyed rookie anymore.

so that's my suggestion; in two years go for the franchise RB.

EDIT - i forgot to mention that Chad is the type of QB who flourishes with having a feature back. while RB-by committee may work, i think he's much more effective when there's a consistent back present.



cheers

 

I'm glad to see a fellow Jets fan who's time horizon isn't "fix it next week." We're a year or two away, depending upon how good Mangini and Tannenbaum are. So far I really like what I see happening... in fact, we're ahead of where I thought we'd be in terms of a rebuild.

There's an outside chance that, depending upon what transpires this year, we could be making a legitimate run in '07-'08. It's possible.

As far as the "feature" back goes, I'd like to see what happens with Houston this year. I know I may be in the minority, but if he gets enough touches he might develope into our feature back. He's got the size and the north-south mentality, he just needs to develope the skills.

 

you are definitely in the minority as far as Houston goes. but don't get me wrong, I like his skillset; i'm just not so sure that he has what it takes to make the Offense what it could be.

i guess after watching Martin plug away for so many years, i thirst for a back that can break it open anytime he touches the ball. that back isn't Houston. and while Washington may be capable of doing so, he's not an every-down back either (so far). although i like the change-of pace that worked so well for teams like the Steelers, a feature-back who can take it to the house really makes an Offense much more threatening -- even now, you see that with Willie Parker who was a gamechanger in the Superbowl.

i'm not saying the feature-back absolutely necessary to win the SB, but in this Offense, with this QB, i think it gives us the best chance.


cheers

 

Jets probably wont settle on a running back this year, and will be going with the stable of barlow, houston, washington, and blaylock if he ever plays. But in this day and age of the NFL its almost better to have a stable or backs instead or relying on one person unless you have a top tier rb which few teams have.

 

So far, Mangini appears to have at least mastered some of his mentor's ability to surprise the opposition with different looks throughout a game and to change that look depending upon how the game develops. Running "by committe" isn't an unintelligent way to approach the running game.

Right now, when I look at the Giants, for example, with Tiki Barber (solid "feature" back) and Brandon Jacobs and who's their other speedster?..., they look like a team with an ideal set of backs to me. If they had a better line there isn't a team they couldn't run against. Unfortunately, the Giants have a propensity to shoot themselves in the foot more often than a supposedly "disciplined" team ought to (penalties, on and off-field bullshit and distractions going on, like Jeremy Shockey, etc., etc.).

So maybe you guys are right... a stable or "by committee," whatever the hell that really means, might be the wave of the future. Let's face it, Martin was good (and I'd certainly never knock what he's done for this team), but if you're a Bill Babychick gameplanning against Herm Edwards, and you know you're going to see Martin and ONLY Martin play in and play out.... come on! How difficult is that to gameplan against?

Well, perhaps I shouldn't have introduced Herm The Simpleton into the equation in my above example, because of a variety of reasons... but you get my drift. Who says the RB has to be one guy? It's not like you're rotating QB's, where it's critical that the guy has a pulse on what everybody's doing.

 

good points.

i think what i was trying to get at is that i'd rather have the featured-back who is a threat. players like Tomlinson, Portis, Larry Johnson, etc are guys that play an entire game and have the ability to break one loose whenever they touch the ball. Barlow and Houston (and Martin) don't pose that threat, whereas Washington does, but he's a good change-of-pace player.

Chad is great at play-action; the more you consistently give a RB the rock, the better the play-action will work. i like this idea of Mangini infusing packages for each of the backs, but i wonder how long it will be before the better D's catch onto that. with a full-time back who is a gamebreaker, you can put him in any package and keep the D guessing every down.

still, i think as the OL improves, so will the RB corps, which is why I don't feel getting a franchise-back is as pivotal as i thought this past Offseason.


cheers