PDA

View Full Version : RBBC??


Mr. Laz
10-29-2004, 12:14 PM
with the latest running success and Dick Vermeil talking about turning the game over to "our big men" could we be heading towards using 2 running backs?

Blaylock has shown some ability to be productive


running the ball protects the defense more... we can't afford to give it to priest holmes 50 times every game. But we could give it to priest holmes 30 times and Blaylock 20 times.


duel RB's ... RBBC


could we see the offense become a heavy running/play action pass type offense?

DaKCMan AP
10-29-2004, 12:18 PM
with the latest running success and Dick Vermeil talking about turning the game over to "our big men" could we be heading towards using 2 running backs?

Blaylock has shown some ability to be productive


running the ball protects the defense more... we can't afford to give it to priest holmes 50 times every game. But we could give it to priest holmes 30 times and Blaylock 20 times.


duel RB's ... RBBC


could we see the offense become a heavy running/play action pass type offense?

You can have Blaylock spell Priest for a play or two or Blaylock/LJ handle the load as long as the game is out of reach. The only reason Priest was pulled for the 2nd half last week was the injury. Otherwise Priest would have had more than 4TDs and a buck twenty on the ground. Could have had a much larger day...

But having Blaylock carry the ball just to save Priest... I don't think we have that luxury with a 2-4 record.

Thig Lyfe
10-29-2004, 12:18 PM
Not a bad idea. Not wearing down Priest while at the same time not affecting his production. I like it.

Thig Lyfe
10-29-2004, 12:20 PM
The only reason Priest was pulled for the 2nd half last week was the injury.

Do you remember what the score was in the second half? Priest could have gone back out, and would have if it had been close. Even without the ankle injury, Priest was probably done anyway.

DaKCMan AP
10-29-2004, 12:27 PM
Do you remember what the score was in the second half? Priest could have gone back out, and would have if it had been close. Even without the ankle injury, Priest was probably done anyway.

If he wasn't hurt at all I think he would have gone out for some of the 3rd quarter.

Here are some of DV's comments:

Could RB Priest Holmes have gone back in the game: “Yes, he could have. He twinged the ankle just a little bit so we just kept him out.”

I also remember reading a quote that said DV would have liked to have gotten Priest the record (for most rush TDs in a single game) but that they didn't because of the injury.

htismaqe
10-29-2004, 12:33 PM
First of all, I don't consider running Priest 30 times and Blaylock 20 "RBbC".

RBbC would be running Priest twice, taking him out, running LJ 3 or 4 times, taking him out, putting Priest in for 2 or 3 carries, taking him out, putting in Blaylock for 5 carries, and so on.

Mr. Laz
10-29-2004, 12:35 PM
I also remember reading a quote that said DV would have liked to have gotten Priest the record (for most rush TDs in a single game) but that they didn't because of the injury.

yea, that quote by Vermeil about getting priest the record came at the same time he admitted not even being aware of the record during the game.

priest holmes can't consistantly run the ball 40 times each game. I dont think any back can.


if we want to run it that much we will have to use another runner 15 times or so a game.

Bob Dole
10-29-2004, 01:09 PM
Dear Al,

Bob Dole would still like to see a 3-back set with Richardson, Holmes and Blaylock.

Just once...

Thanks for your time,
Bob Dole

KCTitus
10-29-2004, 01:12 PM
First of all, I don't consider running Priest 30 times and Blaylock 20 "RBbC".

RBbC would be running Priest twice, taking him out, running LJ 3 or 4 times, taking him out, putting Priest in for 2 or 3 carries, taking him out, putting in Blaylock for 5 carries, and so on.

IMO, RBBC = replacing a 'hot' back who just broke off a long run for a guy averaging .1 YPC...there's nothing remotely close to that on this team.

Rausch
10-29-2004, 01:16 PM
First of all, I don't consider running Priest 30 times and Blaylock 20 "RBbC".

RBbC would be running Priest twice, taking him out, running LJ 3 or 4 times, taking him out, putting Priest in for 2 or 3 carries, taking him out, putting in Blaylock for 5 carries, and so on.

I like the idea of Priest pulling himself out when tired, putting Blaylock in, and then Priest returning after the drive or when he gets his wind back.

Blaylock has looked really good in part time duty....

Mr. Laz
10-29-2004, 01:18 PM
First of all, I don't consider running Priest 30 times and Blaylock 20 "RBbC".

RBbC would be running Priest twice, taking him out, running LJ 3 or 4 times, taking him out, putting Priest in for 2 or 3 carries, taking him out, putting in Blaylock for 5 carries, and so on.

and THAT my friend is exactly why i titled the thread as such.


i knew it would yank the chain of some people alot more than the more accurate. "should we use Blaylock to spell Priest more frequently"?


:p :p

CosmicPal
10-29-2004, 01:19 PM
Dear Al,

Bob Dole would still like to see a 3-back set with Richardson, Holmes and Blaylock.

Just once...

Thanks for your time,
Bob Dole

Dear Bob,

Fat Chance. Despite what you might think, I run the offense around here. Not Dick.

I want a passing game. Therefore, we will pass all the time whether you like it or not. Your dreams of a running back by commitee is just that- a dream.

P.S. Larry Johnson is dating my daughter. That's why he's not getting any playing time.

Sincerely,

Al Saunders
Resident Offensive Coordinator
One Arrowhead Way
Kansas City, Missouri