View Full Version : Holmes vs. Richardson

06-18-2001, 03:14 PM
Hello. I am not from the KC area, but am a fantasy football participant. I would appreciate your insight as to how you think the RB situation will shake out this year.

Vermeil went out and got Priest Holmes, but he seems to be hyping up T-Rich lately. I am a big T-Rich fan, and wonder whether you think he will inevitably inherit the feature back role.


06-18-2001, 03:20 PM
If Vermiel is smart he'll use TRich. He's a flat out better back. But no one has any idea how it's going to shake out at this point.

Vermiel is saying that TRich will get the carries in the one back sets which will be used 40 to 50% of the time.

06-18-2001, 03:22 PM
I reckon they'll get about the same number of carries when all is said and done, but it's possible T-Rich will get more goal-line carries with the opportunity to score.

I guess now that Donnell Bennett is gone, we'll have to use him :D

Lightning Rod
06-18-2001, 03:25 PM
I think it is going to be a "poor mans" version of Alstott and Dunn. IMO Holmes will get about 50% of the carries, Richardson about 35-40% with the remainder spread around between every one else. TR will do most of the short yardage work so should have more TDs.

Lightning Rod
06-18-2001, 03:27 PM
Great minds :)

06-18-2001, 04:18 PM
Depends on your league, but I would not take either one. If your league is like mine see who is doing better after the first month if you want to pick up either one.

My suspicion of late has become that PH will get the big yards rushing.

TR and PH will split the catches

TR will get the close in rushing TDs.

In my league that would suck. Either might make a good back-up.

Pitt Gorilla
06-18-2001, 04:28 PM
They got Priest for his hands and quickness. I assume he'll get most of the catches. I still hope Blaylock gets a look.....

06-18-2001, 04:40 PM
If we blow teams out, TRich will get his carries. If we're trying to keep up or outscore, look for Holmes to do his thing. I think the latter will hold true.

The wild card here is how the OL shapes up. If we go into this year not fully having put together the kind of mobile OL we want, we may be forced to go with TRich more since the personnel may fit his style more...

06-18-2001, 04:50 PM
In this being a new passing offense, with many of the passes going to the feature back coming out of the back-field. Now in the hunt for a new runningback, Vermiel tought that Holmes would be our guy with his speed and great hands.....thats until he actually looked at what we had in T-Rich. I believe T-Rich will get just as many if not more touches than Holmes. The reason being the has better hand, and can boar his way ahead for extra yardage with his size....he averaged 8 point some-odd yards for every catch last season. He can also run for third or fourth and short, I wouldn't trust Holmes there. T-Rich ALSO comes through with a huge 14-20 yard carry a few times a game......IMO he is our developing version of Corey Dillon, and everyone was just too blind to see that while wishing for Dillon.

06-18-2001, 05:14 PM
I wouldn't take a Chiefs RB in a million years. Homervision loses fantasy games and don't temp yourself unless you plan to sit one of these guys on the bench until they prove they can score 10+ fantasy ppg.

I'm thinking Blalock may actually surplant both of them one day - probably not this year, though.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-18-2001, 07:34 PM
Why does everyone say that Holmes is too small to carry the load? Faulk is smaller than Holmes is and he carries the load!



06-19-2001, 07:09 AM
I don't buy the argument that now that DV has seen TRich, Holmes won't be a factor. Make no mistake, Vermeil brought Holmes in to be his "Faulk" and the guy is going to get the carries, IMHO.

By the way, Tony Richardson isn't "developing" into anything, he'll be THIRTY years old in December. Unfortunately, he's going to go the way of Kimble Anders...

06-19-2001, 07:18 AM
I believe from what I heard earlier that Holmes came to mini camp at 195. Faulk probably goes 210 starting the season.

06-19-2001, 08:11 AM
Being both a Chief fan and fantasy football player I would have to tell you to avoid any of the Chiefs running backs at this point. RBBC has not officially died. I know that the coach wants to give the ball to one feature back but until one back emreges from the pack head and shoulders above the rest I believe you will still see RBBC. The only players on the team that deserve to get picked IMO are Derrick Alexander and Donnie Edwards. Trent Green will most likely be a good pick also other than that everyone else would be a reach at this point.

06-19-2001, 08:14 AM
Did you fail to mention Tony Gonzalez or was Donnie Edwards a mistake?

06-19-2001, 08:20 AM
In the KCFX interview last night, Vermeil said he likes Holmes because he is the 'complete package'. He runs, blocks and catches very well. He said he's NOT Marshall Faulk; but he is similar in that he can do everything.

He then went on to praise Cloud - stating he's a <i>much</i> better back than he thought he was coming into KC. He said Moreau (who has dropped <i>fifteen pounds</i>) is explosive and shows flashes of brilliance, and Blaylock is the most explosive of them all (most likely will be a punt returner).

I think he really was surprised by TRich's ability. Outside of KC, people know him as a very good FB - they don't know about his excellent speed and pass-catching abilities (surprising, considering he caught nearly 60 passes last season).

06-19-2001, 08:28 AM
I cannot believe I did not list Tony G.. He is the best Chief to pick. He scores wide receiver type of points. He is a great pick.
In the league I play in Donnie Edwards is also a very nice pick.

06-19-2001, 08:29 AM

Does DV's comments lead you to believe that RBBC is dead?

06-19-2001, 08:32 AM
Well, he <i>is</i> on record saying he prefers to have one guy and stick with him.

However, it seems to me that he likes <i>all</i> of our backs - and that is not a good thing IMO. That means no one back is standing out - none of them is 'taking' the starting position for his own.

06-19-2001, 09:27 AM
This article in today's paper seems appropriate for this discussion.

Dean: 'Committee' members get new duties
By Rick Dean
The Capital-Journal

Al Saunders is a scholar and a gentleman and a man whose esteemed word you want to believe when he says the running back by committee is dead in Kansas City.

"I haven't been associated with many successful teams that didn't have one primary running back," said Saunders, the Chiefs' new offensive coordinator who spent the past two seasons in St. Louis working with a committee of one named Marshall Faulk.

"The exception," Saunders added quickly, "was those years here with Marty (Schottenheimer) when we were successful with a committee.

"But I still think that position needs one guy who gets most of the repetitions. You need to decide in camp, or even earlier, who your running back is going to be. Even if there's an equal battle between two guys, you pick one and let him go. It's the only way he's going to get better. Then if he gets hurt, you need another guy to go in for him."

Amen, Brother Al. Your sermon is well received by the choir.

Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether Saunders will be able to practice what he's preaching in his return to the Chiefs.

For, while they will give him every opportunity to do so, new KC running back Priest Holmes does not invoke images of Marshall Faulk. And barring a miracle of loaves and fishes proportions, Holmes -- even with a 1,000-yard season to his credit in 1998 -- will not invite comparisons to Edgerrin James.

Until Holmes proves he's the kind of do-everything back that has done so much for offenses in St. Louis and Indianapolis, Saunders will have to fire every weapon in his arsenal. And right now that means using fullback Tony Richardson.

But Saunders will be the first to tell you that this is a good situation. For, while the Chiefs don't have all the weapons the potent Rams have in Faulk, Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt, they do pack some ammo St. Louis doesn't.

The Rams that Dick Vermeil and Saunders helped take to the 1999 Super Bowl didn't have a tight end like Tony Gonzalez, a 6-foot-4, 250-pounder who thinks he's a wide receiver. They didn't want a multi-talented fullback like Richardson, whose 5.7-yard average every time he touched the ball last year ranked third in the NFL behind only Faulk and the Giants' Tiki Barber.

At his second mini-camp as Chiefs coach last week, Vermeil was almost bubbling when he talked about the options a big-time tight end and fullback can bring to a Rams-style offense that traditionally places a premium on three- and four-receiver packages.

"You move within the scheme with the people you have," Vermeil said. "Tony Richardson is a better receiver than I thought. I don't think we'll automatically have to take him out of the ballgame. He can play on third downs and do well. He's not Marshall Faulk, but he does a good job.

"And the big guy (Gonzalez) can be moved around to do a lot of things that we did with a third receiver (in St. Louis)."

Moreover, Vermeil says the Chiefs can create mismatches by using its basic two-back, two-wideout offense, even on passing downs.

Consider: It's third-and-6, a passing situation, but the Chiefs keep two backs on the field. The defense hesitates to send out a fifth defensive back, fearing vulnerability to the run. Before the snap, however, KC shifts Gonzalez to a wide-out position, putting him against either a slower linebacker or an undersized back. Holmes shifts and becomes a slot receiver, essentially creating a four-receiver spread offense. Richardson remains in the backfield as either a receiver or runner, and the Chiefs suddenly have a size advantage.

To be sure, Holmes will get most of the running opportunities in Saunders' new offense. But there will still be plenty of work for the remaining committee members.


06-19-2001, 09:44 AM
What I found really interesting last night: when Gretz asked Green how the FB and TE are going to be worked into this 'Rams' O, Trent explained that this is <h1>NOT</h1> the 'Rams' offense! This is a version of the Coryel/San Diego O. Kellan Winslow, regrded by many to be the greatest TE in NFL history, absolutely <i>thrived</i> in that offense! Later, Jay Novachek did the same in the SAME offense in Dallas!

I think that is the O we should really consider our O to be modeled after: the early 90's Cowboys. We have the solid FB (<b>TRich</b> for Johnson), the outstanding TE (<b>Gonzo</b> for Novachek), a smallish RB that can do it all (Holmes for <b>Smith</b>), the dangerous #1 WR (DA for <b>Irvin</b>), the potent #2 (Morris for Harper), accurate QB (Green for <b>Aikman</b>) and solid OL. ((<b>bold</b> indicates the better player IMO))

06-19-2001, 10:23 AM

(I sure hope so)

C'mon Guys! It's all ball bearings!

06-19-2001, 11:48 AM
I have liked the comparison to the Dallas 90's offense since I heard it after Vermiel was hired. I think we are much closer to having the personnel to run the Cowboy offense versus the Rams.

Here is my take on it.

Offensive Line. We are not at the level of the boys in their heyday. But we are not shabby. Not a bad comparison.

Tightend. Novacek was a good possession reciever marginal blocker and not much of a down field threat. Gonzalez is as good a posession reciever, better blocker and a good downfield threat. Our advantage by far

Wide Receivers. Irvin was a better posession receiver than Alexander and also could make the big plays. Also a good leader despite his off the field problems. Still we don't compare badly.
I see Morris as close to Harper and the potential is there for great things. Harper never realized his. Toss up Dallas never could get a third receiver to go with their starters. We have potential in Minnis and Horne.

Running Back. Here is our largest short coming. Smith versus Holmes no comparison.

Fullback Moose versus Richardson. In my opinion Moose was a great blocker, good citizen, decent receiver not great runner. Richardson is a great blockerk, good citizen, better receiver and much better runner.

QB Aikman was a very accurate thrower, tremendous leader but I never saw him have to win games as Elway did. He played within the system throwing accurate passers and controlling the offense. I think Green has this same potential. It has not been realized but I think that it could happen. He seems an accurate thrower, the other players seem to love him, he always says the right things.

I loved the Dallas offense (hated the Cowboys) it was flexible in that they ran inside or outside, primarily threw short to intermediate routes but went long on ocassion.

I think the sign of a really great coach is having a good system that can adapt to the personnel you currently have. The offensive fault Marty always had in my opinion was that he ran the offense whether the players he had could run it or not. Say for example Greg Hill, he never should have been a Chief under Marty. He was never in a position to succeed. He was not Barry Word or Marcus. But we never put him in a position to show his skill set over the course of a season. ( this in no way says that I assume he would have been a star, just that he never had a chance in our offense).

06-19-2001, 06:19 PM
Consider: It's third-and-6, a passing situation, but the Chiefs keep two backs on the field. The defense hesitates to send out a fifth defensive back, fearing vulnerability to the run. Before the snap, however, KC shifts Gonzalez to a wide-out position, putting him against either a slower linebacker or an undersized back. Holmes shifts and becomes a slot receiver, essentially creating a four-receiver spread offense. Richardson remains in the backfield as either a receiver or runner, and the Chiefs suddenly have a size advantage.

This paragraph really adresses the versatilty of Gonzo, Holmes and T-Rich. This is something that can be done on any down and distance, and these three players could make the Chiefs offense one of the most versatile and dangerous that we have seen.
This could really give opposing DCs nightmares.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 07:14 PM

Gimme a break! You honestly think Marshall Faulk is 210? LOL! That may be his LISTED WEIGHT, but the guy is not 210, maybe 195, but not 210.

I've seen the guy in person in street clothes, and he is NOT 210.


may I add though, that Faulk is a nice guy

California Injun
06-19-2001, 07:20 PM

Are you name dropping again?

06-19-2001, 07:22 PM
210, 195, who cares? The point is they're <i>still</i> 'too small' to be every-down backs in the NFL! I know it's true, 'cause I read it on a NFL fan-site bulletin board! ;)

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 07:48 PM

Name dropping? :confused: What?


I think some the fans on this BB are used to the big powerbacks that the Chiefs recently used to employ, but you have to be under 400lbs to be a RB in this style of offense, so sorry Proctor...:D :p

06-19-2001, 07:52 PM
UNDER 400lbs? Says who? :p

California Injun
06-19-2001, 07:52 PM

Weren't you the guy who said something about Barry Sanders coming out of retirement to play for the Chiefs based after overhearing it at a bar by some player/coach? (You bar-backed at that time?)

Then the Troy Aikman conversation at the same said bar?

I could have you mixed up with another BB user so apologies if I am wrong.

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:05 PM

No that wasn't me. I remember who you are talking about though, that was Sheldon. Remember, he's the reporter in Pittsburgh, PA. that got to go the Chiefs TC last year, and reported stuff.

I met Faulk last year at the Chiefs vs. Rams game, BTW, not at some bar:D (sorry Sheldon...if that was you)


has not and will not lie about the players I meet or start rumors

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:06 PM
Also, I don't drink, so I would not be in a bar.

06-19-2001, 08:44 PM

I honestly don't know what weight Faulk plays at. He is listed at 210. I do think that there is a stigma about any back below 200 now. I do not agree with it. I think I did read somewhere that Holmes did weight in at 195 and they were surprised. But there were alot of the really great backs that lasted playing at 210-215.


Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:50 PM

Whether it be Holmes or Richardson, I just want one back to do it all. Whatever gets the "Win", its fine with me. :D

06-19-2001, 08:54 PM
Cody I tell you what. I have wanted a great back for years. The sounds I here say committee still.. It seems like the talked Holmes early and now its the virtues of Cloud, Moreau and of course Richardson. Maybe next years pick will be a back.. ha:)

Chiefs Pantalones
06-19-2001, 08:59 PM

I see your point and where you're coming from. I hope you're wrong about everything after the second sentence:eek:



06-19-2001, 09:12 PM
Maybe Cloud will pan out. I have not totally written him off.

06-19-2001, 10:33 PM
The guy you are thinking of that overheard all these conversations in a bar is Justin Shelley, I believe.

Sheldon Ingram is a reporter for a Pittsburgh TV station, and used his press credentials to get some insight from players at last season's TC.

Just trying to clear up some confusion. :cool:

06-19-2001, 11:28 PM
I have to agree with Nickman....I don't think the rbbc will end this year. I think DV WANT'S it to end, I just don't think he got what he paid for....

Of course, he paid for a back up running back who never made the probowl, and that is what he probably got. The season hasn't started yet, BUT DV and CP are still human....

They have in the past and will in the future make mistakes. Usually, they make fewer mistakes than most...:)

06-20-2001, 07:32 AM
Brad, You are right in that we got a back that was not deemed a good enough starter in Baltimore. He will be ok but he is not a star. Richardson is a good full back but he is not a back that features well in this offense. The other three guys are unknown's and certainly not anywhere close to proven yet. Maybe one of them will explode but our luck never seems to run that way.

06-20-2001, 09:19 AM
I predict that Holmes will start the season as the starting RB and TRich at FB...By mid-season TRich will be the primary ball carrier and Holmes will be the ceremonial "change of pace" back...

06-20-2001, 09:34 AM
I expect the backs to be employed much like Dallas employed <i>theirs</i> in this system (except TRich will get a lot more carries than 'Moose' Johnston ever dreamed of)

2-back, Single TE, 2-WR set = base O

Primary Variations:

1 RB, 2 TE, 2WR

1 RB, 1TE, 3WR

Tony G is the most valuable weapon on this roster. I suspect we'll employ him in every single set (just like Dallas did with Novachek and San Diego did with Winslow)

Pitt Gorilla
12-18-2001, 12:05 PM

12-18-2001, 12:14 PM
Look out Nap......could be your day to be picked on !;)

12-18-2001, 12:30 PM
Holmes is clearly a better runner than Richardson.

12-18-2001, 12:37 PM
I find many of these quotes quite amusing now. We should cut some of them a little slack. At the time, we weren't sure if RBBC was completely dead. Well, now we have our answer. Saunders wasn't BSing us. He was serious and that's exactly what he did. I'll bet a lot of people are glad they were wrong. At least the offseason discussions won't be about needing a rb. ;)

12-18-2001, 12:52 PM
I've also enjoyed reading this, and I also think we should cut everyone some slack.

I can't help but think, however, that we'll be able to view the same kind of misevaluationd regarding Trent Green.

thinking maybe we're too quick to judge...

12-18-2001, 12:56 PM
Without a doubt...we all want to be right..70-80 % is great...it's the 20-30 % that makes us look silly !:)

12-18-2001, 01:02 PM

For some of us, it's the 70-80% that makes us look silly

couldn't resist...