PDA

View Full Version : Teicher: Richardson could share featured back role with Holmes


keg in kc
08-07-2001, 10:03 PM
Richardson could share featured back role with Holmes (http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/chiefs98.pat,sports/3acce132.807,.html)

By ADAM TEICHER - The Kansas City Star
Date: 08/07/01 22:15

RIVER FALLS, Wis. -- Tony Richardson finished last season as the Chiefs' featured back and with hopes of keeping the job this year.

The signing of free agent Priest Holmes ended those hopes, but Richardson still could wind up sharing the role.

The Chiefs are still sorting through different scenarios for Richardson, Holmes and their other running backs. For now, Richardson is starting at fullback and Holmes at halfback.

The two are splitting single-back duties, with Richardson playing mostly with two tight ends and Holmes with three wide receivers.

"I think we'll both be getting the ball," Richardson said. "You just never know. I think one thing coach (Dick) Vermeil is really into is getting a back into a groove. If a back's into a groove, he's going to feed him the ball. I don't think there'll be any situations now where a guy gets five carries and then he comes out. It's not going to be like that."

Vermeil and offensive coordinator Al Saunders prefer a featured back to the committee approach, but appear forced to split the job. Vermeil has expressed concerns about the 5-foot-9, 213-pound Holmes and his ability to carry the full load.

They have no such concerns about the 232-pound Richardson, a punishing runner.

"We'll take it game by game and see which is the best way for us to attack a defense," Saunders said. "At season's end, we hope there's a lot more than just one productive back.

"It will all resolve itself. Part of the whole training camp deal is to find out what guys can and can't do. We're still in that process."

Another factor is rookie Derrick Blaylock, a fifth-round pick. The speedy Blaylock has been impressive in camp and could figure into the playing rotation.

The Chiefs will get a good look at Blaylock in the preseason and a good showing earns him some playing time, too.

Richardson rushed for 275 yards and a 6.4-yard average in the last three games of 2000. The Chiefs are going away from a power running game and needed a quicker back to make it work.

That explains the signing of Holmes. The Chiefs still have a need for Richardson, which is why he wasn't disappointed when it happened.

"I'm not a selfish person," Richardson said. "Selfish individuals feel like that. I'm at the point in my career where it's all about trying to get a championship."

NaptownChief
08-07-2001, 10:07 PM
I have believed all along that Richardson will end up our primary ball carrier...Holmes will play plenty but will ultimately be shuffled over to 2nd/3rd and long back...Which it sounds like later in the year he could lose part of that role to Blaylock...

Fat Elvis
08-07-2001, 11:11 PM
I think one thing coach (Dick) Vermeil is really into is getting a back into a groove. If a back's into a groove, he's going to feed him the ball. I don't think there'll be any situations now where a guy gets five carries and then he comes out. It's not going to be like that."









Sorry Proctor.

waKCo
08-08-2001, 04:04 AM
It seems funny that Richardson would be a "feature Back" with someone else.

Is there another definition to "feature back" that involves other people?

Saggysack
08-08-2001, 04:43 AM
I think they mean something like a Thunder and Lightning combo

KCJohnny
08-08-2001, 06:51 AM
I hope this really happens!
TR is da man!!!!!!

As for RBbC (which I do NOT favor), what do you make of this statement Elvis?

The Chiefs are still sorting through different scenarios for Richardson, Holmes and their other running backs. For now, Richardson is starting at fullback and Holmes at halfback.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

Tony Richardson will win the job flat out and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let there be plenty of two TE sets!!!!!!!!!

KCJ
Rejoicing in this great news:D

Clint in Wichita
08-08-2001, 07:13 AM
Committee sucks, whether it's 2 backs or 4.

TRich is faster than Holmes, and has great hands.

Holmes was a useless signing, IMO. That money could've been used on a CB or WR.

We already HAD an undersized scrub on the roster. His name is Mike Cloud.

Hydrae
08-08-2001, 07:27 AM
I agree completely Clint! I wondered at the time but thought maybe we were looking to use TonyR in a more classic FullBack type situation. Of course then I woke up and realized that the Air Coryell offense doesn't really even use a FullBack! Oops!

HC_Chief
08-08-2001, 07:39 AM
Priest Holmes is the best RB we've had in KC since Marcus Allen.

This endless speculation and homerish ignorance is starting to annoy me. Tony Richardson is a FULLBACK and will be employed as such.

Holmes will receive 60-70% of the carries this year... along with a whole lot of pass receptions. TRich will get the rest.

milkman
08-08-2001, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by HC_Chief
Priest Holmes is the best RB we've had in KC since Marcus Allen.

This endless speculation and homerish ignorance is starting to annoy me. Tony Richardson is a FULLBACK and will be employed as such.

Holmes will receive 60-70% of the carries this year... along with a whole lot of pass receptions. TRich will get the rest.

I don't know that I'd refer to the speculation as homerish ignorance.
Seems that label could be applied to those that don't have questions.

As Chiefs fans that have been subjected to Martyball and Guntherspeak over the last 12 years, cynicism should be expected.

Hell, the way this article reads, we should be expecting another RBbC approach this season.

I'd be both surprised and ecstatic f any of the RBs get as much as 55% of the carries, and touches.

HC_Chief
08-08-2001, 07:52 AM
Speculation is by the writers(Teicher/JoPo). Homerish ignorance is by the fans on this board who only know TRich... so, of course in <i>their</i> minds(limited as they are), he's the better choice at RB.

Like I said, it is really starting to work my nerves

milkman
08-08-2001, 08:09 AM
I'm not sold on T-Rich as a feature back, although he is the best of the returning RBs from the Chiefs 2000 stable.
I'm also not sold on Holmes. I've seen him have some pretty good games, but have also seen him be fairly ineffective.
Neither backs can effectively elminate the committe approach, but together, they can trim the committe to a 2 man board.
This is the best we can hope for, IMO.
Of course, it's all only speculation by an ignorant homer.

And yes, the ignorant homers are speculating, same as the writers.

milkman
08-08-2001, 08:20 AM
BTW, there's no way that I would put Clint in the Homer category.
If I were to classify him, e'd be in the anti-Homer category, along with Cannibal.

Hoover
08-08-2001, 09:05 AM
I have always thought a team need two people running the ball. Last year the Ram ran the ball 383 time. That is not really that much. This is how I think it will it play out.

Richardson will get the same amout of carries he had last year.
150 for about 700 yards, with at least the same amount of receptions if not more (58 rec for468 yards)

Holmes will get about 225 t0 250 carries

Tm me that is not a committee, that is two running backs bring something different to the field. This is always whatI wanted the Chiefs to do, and how this is what AL and Dick are thinking about.

Hoover

Clint in Wichita
08-08-2001, 09:06 AM
Well, if TRich is only a FULLBACK, then Holmes is only a BACKUP RUNNING BACK.

If guys are going to remain stuck in a role, then there's no way Holmes should be starting for us.

I doubt that TRich will be the featured back, but he IS faster than Holmes, and has great hands. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

Iowanian
08-08-2001, 09:10 AM
It is possible that both guys can get significant carries....

I'm thinking of Word and Okoye...I don't think the Chiefs will be pounding the ball that much, but TR and Ph should both get enough touches to keep things fresh.

morphius
08-08-2001, 09:16 AM
I just love the fact that you can stick both these guys out at the same time so that the D will not know who to key in on. Anything that makes life more miserable for other teams DC's and D's is a great thing.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 09:18 AM
Vermeil has expressed concerns about the 5-foot-9, 213-pound Holmes and his ability to carry the full load.

I keep hearing people say this, but I've never once heard VERMEIL say it. All I've heard Vermeil say is that Holmes is going to be the feature back and that TRich will get carries too.

Regardless of how good TRich is, he doesn't fit the profile that Vermeil wants, and DV has said that. I wouldn't count on TRich becoming anything more than the fullback. If Holmes does get replaced, it will be by Blaylock.

Clint,

Comparing Holmes to Cloud and calling him an overpriced scrub is way off-base. And TRich, according to reports, is NOT faster than Holmes. Unless you've seen them run together side by side, you are speculating, not stating "fact".

Logical
08-08-2001, 09:38 AM
I think Hoover and I concur.

I have been saying just shy of 60% of the touches for Priest and just shy of 40% for T. Rich that sets pretty well with Hoover's numbers. By the way Air Coryell did not run exclusively one back sets but when Chuck Muncie was in there it was primarily in one back situations. T. Rich is very fast but does not have the shiftiness or the ability to make tacklers miss that Priest Holmes does. On the other hand T. Rich has proven his durability while PH has had some problems with injuries this is why they make a perfect tandem as ones weakness plays to the others strengths. PH is a true tailback (who is also very fast) while T. Rich is a very fast full back. Both can block like mofo's and have a nasty streak in doing so, it is a great luxury to have such a combination since we do not have a Marshall, Edgerrin type of stud tailback.

KCJ,

Saunders and Vermiel have both said that two tight end sets would be employed but to create confusion and mismatches for passing situations. Saunders speculates about that with specifics yesterday talking about Ricks and Gonzo and how one of them would end up isolated on a corner that could not match up due to size and the other on a linebacker who could not match up due to speed. Then he stated that one of running backs would probably split out on motion and said as an afterthought that it still left a good running back available for an occasion running play to keep the defense honest.

So you will get your two back two tight end set but most likely it is to create confusion and mismatches in passing scenarios, not to run the ball. That was the way it was with the Chargers and logically the way it will be with the Chiefs. Facing facts using Gonzo like another lineman is a tremendous waste of his talent except to occasionally throw the defense off.

It is now clear they really think of Gonzo as their most talented receiver and he is a TE as an afterthought.

This makes me werry werry happy, as Sulu would say!

phillfree
08-08-2001, 09:56 AM
Denver and St Louie both made it to the Superbowl with the help of excellent running backs. Both TD and Faulk recieved probably 90 + % of the RB duties by there respective teams and guess what? Both guys have spent a considerable amount of time injured since. We need one guy to be top dawg but we still must utilize both backs with a 60/40 or 70/30 split. IMO ShannaRat used TD so much that his career is almost over and he hasn't really played for the last two years. Shanny basically ran TD into the ground. TRich and The Priest both need to get there touches and we will be better off using a two back system. IMO!

PhilFree :cool:

NaptownChief
08-08-2001, 10:30 AM
HC,

I would consider myself a lot of thing but a KC Homer is not among them...And to be honest with you there are several people on this board, yourself included, that know much more about the Chiefs than I do. Because of my location I don't get near as much info on the Chiefs as most of you guys. However, there aren't many that have as much knowledge about all teams and players in general. I have watched many UT college games with Holmes and virtually all of his games in Baltimore and my opinion is that he is a very solid all around back but is nothing special...

TRich has the physical tools to be a very good fullback but he also has the tools to be a very good tailback...Barry Foster, Jerome Bettis, Ickey Woods, Pete Johnson, Natrone Means, Chuck Muncie, Craig Heyward etc.etc all had the bodies to play fullback but made their living as primary ball carriers...

In my opinion a Homer is more along the lines of someone who agrees with the teams current opinion not someone who is speaking opposite...The teams current opinion is that Priest Holmes is their primary tailback...

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 11:10 AM
"TRich is faster than Holmes"


I beg to differ.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 11:55 AM
JL80,

Just because I think Holmes should be the feature back, I'm a homer? I hardly think so...

HC_Chief
08-08-2001, 01:13 PM
nap, milk, et al - you misconstrued the use of 'homerish' to equate to 'homerism'. ;)

Homerish ignorance was applied to term a person who thinks <U>{insert KC Chief}</u> is an all-world talent that has yet to be discovered, while <u>{insert FA/draft acquisition}</u> was a poor signing because of <u>{insert ignorant statement}</u>

Are we clear now? :p

Pitt Gorilla
08-08-2001, 01:32 PM
Clint,
Where did you get that T-Rich is faster than Holmes? Are you serious?

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 01:42 PM
You know, I took some of the same heat when I defended the Cadrez signing.

I don't formulate opinions solely on what Carl Peterson, Dick Vermeil, Rufus Dawes, or Gunther Cunningham say.

I have friends who, along with myself, watch ALOT of football and watch ALOT of individual players. They are all fairly knowledgable, at least as much so as some us here. And none of them are Chiefs fans, in fact, a few of them are Donks fans.

Priest Holmes DOES NOT suck. He may not be the answer, but he's closer than anything we've had recently.

NaptownChief
08-08-2001, 01:51 PM
hitis,

I don't think anybody is being a homer regardless of who they think should be a feature back...They are both Chiefs for pete's sake...


As for the who's faster topic....Unless TRich has suffered a major loss of speed in the last 24 months then I can assure you that he is faster the Holmes...I remember two training camps ago he was being said by the coaching staff as one of the fastest 40 guys on the team...If my memory serves me correctly they were throwing around numbers in the 4.3 category...I know Holmes is not in that neighborhood.

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 02:35 PM
Holmes ran a 72yrd TD run.

He's not fast.:rolleyes:


If TRich runs in the 4.3 range, I have yet to see him do that on the field. Also, if he did run a 4.3, it was with his underwear on. He looks slow in pads, BTW. And lacks the vision to be a good RB, or else he would be the featured back and Holmes would be back up, and Layne would be FB, IMO.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 03:25 PM
TRich does not run a 4.3, and I'm not just talking about straight line speed without pads.

Wait until the games start. Compare Priest Holmes' "juke and jive" with TRich's. You'll understand where I'm coming from.

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 03:29 PM
Was it the stooges that said he ran a 4.3?

They're fillin your head with chinese bull ****, IMO.

CG

don't trust the stooges (yek, yek, yek:D )

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 03:54 PM
I've heard T-Rich was a 4.3/4.4 guy at one point as well, for what it's worth, and I believe it because there have been moments where he's shown that sort of speed on the field, although usually on pass plays, not running it up the gut.

That said, he doesn't have much in terms of quickness or lateral movement, which is why Priest Holmes is here. Tony might run over someone, but he won't make too many guys miss (although he's gotten better with that, he showed a move or two against the donks last year).

Tony is faster than you think, although I doubt he's still 4.3.

FWIW, they've been working on him lining up outside as well (WR) so that he and Priest can play interchangeably on 2 back sets. Could be something to see, and a problem for defenses.

morphius
08-08-2001, 04:22 PM
Cody - Until last offseason and the signing of Hall, TRich was the fastest Chiefs player. They were not trying to sell him as a RB when the statement was said, it is pretty common knowledge. Actually him having speed helps at FB because he is not getting in the way, and did you not see him in the open field last year when he wasn't running someone over?

Morphius
Not sure what Cody was watching.

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:27 PM
"running someone over"

He should have been juking them and trying to get to the endzone.:D

Why didn't he juke? Because he can't. And thats why he can't be the featured back of this offense.

CG

wondering why speedy TRich didn't turn on his 4.3 speed and burn it all the way to the endzone, last year.:rolleyes:

:D

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 04:32 PM
I can give you one example without even thinking Cody - he had a 30+ yard TD against the donks in Arrowhead where he actually did all the things we're discussing: speed, juke, and power.

I think T-Rich's problem is two-fold, lack of lateral movement and the fact that (IMHO) he just goes down too easily sometimes. Try to tackle him above the waist and you're toast, but I've also seen the guy trip over blades of grass...

I'm not arguing he should be the feature back, I think Holmes can do it and beyond that I think with both in the backfield we have, for all intents and purposes, two feature backs (either can line up anywhere, they've worked on this), but I am saying T-Rich was at one time a 4.3 runner, and is probably now a 4.4 or 4.45 guy.

Like I said, he's faster than you think, but of course speed isn't everything...

Why so hard-headed about T-Rich's speed, Cody, just because KCJ likes him?

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:37 PM
I'm not hard headed about him, Kyle.

I'm arguing about the 4.3 speed, people say he has.

In order for me to believe that (because he doesn't show it on the field) you're gonna have to give me his 40 time some where.

CG

arguing his 40 time, not his abilties, although he is a FB, not a RB.

JoePo said in that article yesterday that the Chiefs used to have a thing for converted RBs, but that has changed now, even though TRich will get the ball in the one-back sets.

He's a FB.

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 04:42 PM
Cody, you can't find current 40 times for any NFL veterans anywhere that I'm aware of.

My fiance works with his girlfriend, so I'll see if Tracy (my fiance) can't just ask him the next she sees him...

morphius
08-08-2001, 04:43 PM
Cody - Just want to check on something with you, do you believe that having 4.3 40 time would make someone a good juker?

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:44 PM
Kyle,

Sweet! Where does your fiance work?

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 04:45 PM
Tracy is a promotions producer for KCTV5, Kansas City's CBS affiliate. She's actually working on the Chiefs Locker Room show this year, but I'm not sure under what capacity (she told me but I forgot :o)

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:49 PM
Morph,

Yes.

TRich does not have what it takes to be a starting RB, or else DV would make him the starting RB, right?

Thats all I'm saying, basically. If he had what it took to the featured RB, DV would put him there. Thats true.

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:50 PM
And not to be blunt, Morph, but I don't see any fat guys that have 4.3 speed, do you?

:D

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 04:53 PM
There's your problem, Cody. Tony is anything but fat (6'2, 232). The guy is cut like you wouldn't believe. He's all muscle, man, and his arms are scary, I kid you not.

I'll see if I can't find a photo (doubt it, don't have much time...)

milkman
08-08-2001, 04:54 PM
Keg,
Your fiance is working on something Chief related, she told her part in the show's production, and you forgot what it is?

What the hell good are ya!?!?!?:D

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 04:56 PM
In my defense, filming of the show hasn't even started yet, Red Eyes. :p

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 04:59 PM
Kyle,

I want to believe you, but I have to have some kind of evidence.

The guy doesn't look fast, IMO. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe he'll blow right by defenses this year, etc. But until I see his 40 time (I'm counting on you Kyle:D ) I don't believe the guy has 4.3 speed.

CG

BTW, why isn't he returning punts:D ;) :p

KCJohnny
08-08-2001, 05:00 PM
Some of you guys are talking out of your fart holes about Richardson' speed. Somebody actually called him fat(????).
Richardson was the fastest guy on the entire squad as recently as '99. He had a 4.7 ypc average and an 8.1 ypc avg for an AFC best 5.7 ypt avg in '00. He gained over 1,100 all purpose yards last year playing BOTH FB/HB. Juke THAT.

The article itself noted that T-Rich gained 275 yds (6.4) in the Chiefs 3 final games of '00.

One question remains critical in my mind: with a one back set, a QB sacked once every 10 attempts (career), and a rebuilt knee, who do YOU want blocking for the franchise QB? Especially in the ruff'n'tumble AFC West?

I was one of the loudest advocates to bring Priest Holmes here as far back as '99 (maybe some of you Star BB vets rememeber). He will make a fine RB in this system. I just believe that on the grass, TR will outperform every other RB on the roster, and that AS/DV will recognize that.

Q: What happens if Priest gets hurt (God forbid)?

KCJ
RB Expert;)

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 05:03 PM
Even if he does have a 4.3, I don't see it on the field, do you?

Or maybe he hasn't been given the full oportunity, Kyle, to showcase?

CG

Proc, no one called him fat, read the replys:rolleyes:

KCJohnny
08-08-2001, 05:08 PM
OK, read this nice and slowly...

Who led the AFC in yards-per-touch in 2000 (combined rushing and receiving average, now an offical NFL stat)?

Tony Richardson, KC Chiefs.

The only two RBs with a higher average were Marshall Faulk and Tiki Barber.

Speed? Power? Hands?

Bonus: this guys blocks like a freight train.

KCJ
Sponsor of remedial fan training

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 05:08 PM
And if he has 4.3 speed, thats fine. I don't care that I'm proved wrong, oh well.

CG

is not stubborn, just needs proof

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 05:09 PM
Cody, as I've said, I think he had 4.3 speed at one time (he was said to be the 2nd fastest player on the squad), but now I believe he only has 4.4 or 4.45 speed now, which is still pretty respectable for a guy his size.

I'm one who thinks he would have been a terrific featured back under the prior staffs/system, but didn't get the opportunity for whatever reason(not blaming anything on the staff, he may not have stood out in practice). Think Stephen Davis in a Chiefs uni...

I don't think he'd work as a 100% featured guy under the new system, but I do believe he'll have a valuable role as a change-of-pace guy and a power option. He and Holmes together on the field will create problems, especially when both are able to line up at all back positions and at WR.

Why not return punts?

1) lateral movement needed
2) he's big! You don't want a 6'2, 230 pound guy returning punts. Too easy a target for the coverage teams.


John said FART!!! Potty mouth! :p

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 05:10 PM
Proctor,

What in the hell does that have to do with his speed, 40 time?

CG

my gosh:rolleyes:

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 05:15 PM
Kyle,

I was joking about the punts;)

And I agree, he would have been a good back under last years system, but not this years and on.

And once again, this is about his 40 TIME, not his abilities!!!

Good grief...

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 06:10 PM
He had a 4.7 ypc average and an 8.1 ypc avg for an AFC best 5.7 ypt avg in '00. He gained over 1,100 all purpose yards last year playing BOTH FB/HB. Juke THAT.

In limited duty...who knows how well he would have done as a full-time starter. John, I think TRich is a great back, but his stats don't tell the whole story or Vermeil would have crowned him and not signed Priest...

One question remains critical in my mind: with a one back set, a QB sacked once every 10 attempts (career), and a rebuilt knee, who do YOU want blocking for the franchise QB? Especially in the ruff'n'tumble AFC West?

If Priest is such a bad blocker, we better do something about our defense, because DV has said that so far Holmes is the toughest blocker we have in the backfield...he leveled Marvcus Patton the other day and Patton was bull rushing...

He will make a fine RB in this system. I just believe that on the grass, TR will outperform every other RB on the roster, and that AS/DV will recognize that.

Grass or no grass, Priest is better suited to be the feature back in this offense. They'll both be on the field alot though...

Q: What happens if Priest gets hurt (God forbid)?

Blaylock gets more playing time...


Speed? Power? Hands?

Bonus: this guys blocks like a freight train.

Priest has all of these traits as well, plus he's capable of breaking the big play at any time and he can line up in the slot. Don't worry, I'm betting we see plenty of them both this year.

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 06:25 PM
Also, Parker, is the fact that for at least some percentage of our "one back" sets, both Holmes and Richardson will still be on the field, one in the backfield and one motioned to receiver. There's a plethora of information that points to this, and I think it's safe to say we'll see a lot of two back sets and a fair amount of motion.

Lotsa possibilities that we wouldn't have without Holmes:

WR Alexander
WR Mayes/Minnis
TE Gonzo --> motions to slot
RB Holmes --> motions to slot
FB Richardson --> singleback

WR Alexander
TE Gonzo --> motions to split end
TE Ricks --> motions to slot
RB Holmes --> singleback
FB Richardson --> motions to slot

There's even this:

WR Alexander
WR Mayes/Minnis
TE Gonzo --> motions to FB or to H-back
RB Holmes --> motions to slot
FB Richardson --> motions back to halfback

And the coolest part is that Holmes and T-Rich are interchangeable - either one can remain in the backfield and either one can motion to WR.

We won't see this every down, obviously, and there will be true singleback sets (btw, anyone notice that the faders opened singleback with Garner and 4 WR against Dallas?) but this gives us some real flexibility that not many teams in the league can enjoy.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 06:39 PM
Kegger,

That was definitely my point. I don't want to make Proctor all gushy, but this formation sure is intriguing...

WR Alexander
TE Gonzo --> motions to split end
TE Ricks --> motions to slot
RB Holmes --> singleback
FB Richardson --> motions to slot

WOW...and to think, we're going to run AND pass out of a 2TE/2RB formation!

Logical
08-08-2001, 07:03 PM
Parker,

Not only are we going to pass out of that formation but if we run it is likely to keep them off guard according to Saunders.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 07:21 PM
Nothing against TRich, but I've been waiting for over 20 years to see a Chiefs running back bust through a hole between the right guard and right tackle, cut to the outside, and take it to the house!

I think Priest can do it...

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 07:28 PM
htis,

"I think Priest can do it"


So do I, so do I.

CG

I love your thinking, htis!!!

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 07:38 PM
I don't see how these formations can do anything but help the outside running. We'll already have the o-line pulling and then we'll be set up with at least one TE on the outside blocking. If the back gets past the initial push at the LoS then we're looking at the potential of some hearty yardage. ;)

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 07:39 PM
The O-line will be pulling? What's that? I'm a Chiefs' fan! :D

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 08:02 PM
"There were some interesting personnel sets for the Chiefs today. One set had Derrick Blaylock and Priest Holmes in the backfield together. Another had Tony Richardson and Blaylock together. There was also a single-back formation that featured Richardson along with Mikhael Ricks as the extra tight end. The team also rotated Derrick Mayes and Snoop Minnis at No. 2 receiver."

The plot thickens.

morphius
08-08-2001, 08:18 PM
Cody - I never said that I thought he should be the starter, I was just letting you know that what other people was saying was true, he runs really fast. I think, and someone might have said this already, but just because you have fast straight speed does not mean your going to be able to juke and cut really well. Heck I used to be just the opposite, could juke really well, but didn't have break away speed. If I'm also not mistaken, there is nothing fat about TRich...

Personally I like the idea of him staying a FB, as I said earlier having him and Priest out there is a solid combo, especially if Holmes can block well. If Holmes goes down, and Blaylock is ready then make him the RB and use TRich as his FB.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 08:25 PM
I agree, Morph...

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 08:29 PM
I agree too, Morph. I wasn't arguing TRich's abilities. He's a talented FB, by far. I was arguing his speed. I tend to believe you guys, that he was fast.

I like Blaylock. I hope he works out, BTW!

CG

I just want a Super Bowl victory before I die!!!!:D

I think I speak for everyone:)

Chiefs Pantalones
08-08-2001, 08:52 PM
"Most of the starters are going to play most of the first half, with the exception of Trent Green."

What does that mean? Does that mean TG will play a quarter and the rest will play a half, or what?:confused:

I heard earlier on that TG and co. were going to play the whole first half. I guess it changed.:)

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 09:09 PM
Green knows the offense, so it makes sense to not play him as much so that his knee can rest...

Cannibal
08-08-2001, 10:11 PM
Did anyone catch any Ravens games last year? Holmes IS NOT that fast. He's definitely not as fast as Richardson. From what I saw of Holmes [3 or 4 games] last year, he finds the whole well, and can make the first guy miss, but he doesn't have the speed to "take it to the house" at all. Holmes is a "solid, yet unspectacular" player. He definitely not a gamebreaker that's for sure.

Cannibal
08-08-2001, 10:15 PM
I am hoping Blaylock bursts onto the scene and takes Holmes job from him. Then use TRich as the primary back, with Holmes seeing some carries on third down.

You people who are all excited about Holmes are setting yourselves up for a big disappointment. If he was as great as you guy's claim, the Ravens would have kept Holmes.

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 10:18 PM
Cannibal,

I saw Holmes play twice last year, a couple of times the year before, and I saw him play probably a dozen games the year before that (he was a backup on my fantasy team).

YES HE DOES have breakaway speed.

In the last 3 years he's had 7 runs of 50 yards or longer. That's SEVEN more than ALL of our running backs, COMBINED. The only runs we've had longer than 50 yards were by Derrick Alexander.

Go ahead and be negative, but the fact remains he's closer to a gamebreaker than anything we have, or have had, on this roster...

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 10:20 PM
You people who are all excited about Holmes are setting yourselves up for a big disappointment. If he was as great as you guy's claim, the Ravens would have kept Holmes.

And the Falcons would have kept Brett Favre. And the Eagles would have kept Charlie Garner. And the list goes on and on and on and on...

There are a million and one reasons why a player might not get to be featured for a certain team. Lack of talent is only ONE of them...

keg in kc
08-08-2001, 10:27 PM
I like T-Rich in the backfield, but not as the primary ball-carrier. I like him as our "offspeed pitch" so to speak, a little power to mix things up, but he just doesn't have the moves I want for an every-down feature back in the system that I'm envisioning (which seems to be pretty close to what we've got, judging by the information we're getting). As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I think he'd be fantastic as a feature back if we were still running a power-oriented internal running system, but we're not. Another facter is that T-Rich is far and away our best lead blocker -- we have nobody better -- so if we're playing any two back sets (and we will be) and he's playing halfback, than who's gonna block for him, the rookie Layne?

Holmes'll be fine. Not spectacular, but he'll do well-enough for us, and he and T-Rich will make a fine backfield for us.

As for Blaylock, I'm hoping he develops into something too, but expecting that to happen this year is a reach. It would sure be nice to see enough of him, though, to know whether or not we need to draft a RB early next year...

htismaqe
08-08-2001, 10:36 PM
Even if Homes is "unspectacular" he's going to look like ****ing Barry Sanders to us, simply because they're going to give him the ball. Assuming he stays close to his career average, he'd only need about 225 carries to hit 1000 yards. I don't think 1000 yards rushing is out of the question...

KCJohnny
08-09-2001, 05:41 AM
Only 1 RB in the Chiefs' 41 years history has EVER carried more than 51% of the team's total rushing attempts.
Christian Okoye, '89.

I seriously doubt DV will break the mold. The committee is 1 injury away from returning, and the way camp is going, I'm not so sure the injury is even necessary.

KCJ
Go T-Rich!

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 06:03 AM
T-Rich and Priest Holmes sharing carries is not a "committee".

Priest Holmes, T-Rich, Mike Cloud, Derrick Blaylock and George Layne sharing carries all season long would be the continuation of the "committee" and injuries are the only way that this kind of crap will ever happen under this coaching staff:

1999
Donnell Bennett 161 carries
Bam Morris 120 carries
Tony Richardson 84 carries
Rashan Shehee 65 carries
Mike Cloud 35 carries
Kimble Anders 32 carries

2000
Tony Richardson 147 carries
Kimble Anders 76 carries
Frank Moreau 67 carries
Mike Cloud 30 carries
Donnell Bennett 27 carries

You can expect this in 2001 if everyone stays healthy, like it or not:

Priest Holmes 208 carries (13 per game)
Tony Richardson 112 carries (7 per game)
Derrick Blaylock/Mike Cloud/George Layne (combined) 80 carries (5 per game)

That's 400 carries, 25 rushes per game.

And if someone gets hurt, one guy will take his place.

There will be no committee here.

KCJohnny
08-09-2001, 06:51 AM
Kyle,
I hope you're right!
The odds are 41:1 against it!
KCJ
Agrees that 2 RBs are no RBbC

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 07:13 AM
Good, I'm glad we agree. ;)

Here's hoping injuries don't affect the gameplan...

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 07:38 AM
Oh, so now the homers compare Priest to Brett Favre?

:o

Priest Holmes is an above average RB. If he was a great as you claim he would have been a starter for his entire career and he never would have been a free agent. And if the Raven had no choice but to let him go, he would have signed a big money contract and would have had a boatload of suitors trying to snag him.

Instead he had like two or three teams interested and he signed a bottom barrel contract when compared to other "starting running backs".

He is what he is, a decent third down RB that can spell a primary ball carrier when they get tired.

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 09:00 AM
The odds are 41:1 against it!

KCJ, past history doesn't dictate such odds...yes, there's only been 1, blah, blah, blah...but this is Dick Vermeil...

How many seasons has he used RBbC as a coach? ZERO

Therefore the odss are 1:1 that we won't use RBbC using your logic...

Oh, so now the homers compare Priest to Brett Favre?

you are such an *******! I'm not saying he's as good as Brett Favre, obviously. I'm saying Mark Brunnell, Brett Favre, Charlie Garner, Stephen Davis, and MANY others were backups for 1, 2, or even 3 years before becoming what they are today.

Priest Holmes is an above average RB. If he was a great as you claim he would have been a starter for his entire career and he never would have been a free agent.

That is so stupid it's not even funny. I can't even argue with that it's so stupid.

Instead he had like two or three teams interested and he signed a bottom barrel contract when compared to other "starting running backs".

Yeah, just like that guy Charlie Garner everybody was clamoring about.

I understand you don't like Priest Holmes. Unfortunately, what your saying is blatantly untrue. Sorry, but you are wrong this time.

KCJohnny
08-09-2001, 10:27 AM
History doesn't matter, eh?
I guess it didn't matter to Hank Stram, John Mackovich, Marv Levy, Frank Ganz, Gunther Cunningham, etc...I am sure that THEY had a coherent strategy to use a "feature" back...but what happened?
In fact, the ONLY Chiefs HC to slay this RBbC beast was the one guy you THINK invented it: Marty Schottenheimer.

As for Holmes, yes, he's a 3rd down back, but that is just what Al Saunders is looking for. His new offense treats every down and situation as a third-and-long.

KCJ
Condervatively siding with history until I see different

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 10:31 AM
Sorry ht, but you're hanging your hat and hopes on a career backup. Priest Holmes is not a starting RB, [on a legit contender anyway].

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 11:03 AM
Johnny,

Levy used RBbC here because he didn't have any talented backs, so did most of the other coaches...in fact, that's always been the problem with the Chiefs. Outside of Delaney, Allen, and Okoye, we've been deprived of talented running backs.

My problem with Marty was that even with Hall of Famer Marcus Allen, he insisted on the ****.

Cannibal,

I'm not hanging my hat on anything. I have hope that the RBbC is dead, tempered with the reality that 1) Priest Holmes is not Marshall Faulk but 2) he is good enough to be our starting running back.

Since I've seen him play 500% more than you have, I'll trust my own eyes on this one...

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 11:18 AM
Go ahead and trust your own eyes. I've seen him play enough to form an opinion as well. And my opinion agrees with the other 30 teams in the league besides the Chiefs... Priest Holmes is a backup or 3rd down RB.

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 11:22 AM
Hell even Dick Vermeil who despises RBBC is questioning Holmes ability to carry the load. Vermiel never ever talked about splitting carries before.

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 11:22 AM
The idea that you know what 30 other teams thought of Priest Holmes is kind of egocentric, don't you think?

Do you think Charlie Garner is a "career backup"? Because that's what he was for NINE YEARS before he got to San Fran. And he garnered EXACTLY as much interest as Holmes did before signing with the Raiders.

Do you think that talent is the ONLY reason that people release and sign people? You don't think there are other factors? That seems a bit naive.

Look at it this way. Tiki Barber sat on the bench his first two years in the league for the most part. Then he played some and sat back on the bench. Last year, the Giants thought so much of him that they drafted Ron Dayne with their #1. And Barber showed he can cut it.

The simple fact remains that Billick said Holmes wasn't big enough to be his starter. It had NOTHING to do with ability.

I never said Holmes was the second coming. I did say he is not as bad as you say he is. I see him just like I see Tiki Barber, and my bet is that he puts up similar stats.

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 11:23 AM
Hanging your hopes on Holmes would be expecting the guy to rush for 1200 yards and get another 600 in receiving yards, and I don't know that anyone's doing that.

In fact, the only person I've seen making predictions here is me, and I'll stand by mine, because they make sense...

Holmes will get about 13 rushes/game and T-Rich will get about 7.

Hell, I'll even go further and throw receptions into it. Barring injuries, these should be our season totals:

Holmes: 208 carries for 900 yards and 45 receptions for 350 yards (comes out to about 16 touches/game)
T-Rich: 112 carries for 500 yards and 30 receptions for 250 yards (comes out to about 9 touches/game)

Since Holmes has a 233 carry, 1003 yard season under his belt, and T-Rich has last year's 147 carry, 697 yard performance in the bag, I don't think these rushing totals are more than we should expect. In fact, they're probably a little conservative. And both backs are proven receivers, to boot, so I'm not sure what the problem here is...

And I'll tell you what, I'll be tickled pink to have two backs in the backfield who combine for 1200 yards rushing and 600 yards receiving, until that day where we finally have a true stud back who can do it alone (or more). But right now, this seems to be a reasonable expectation to have, and it sure beats the he!! out of having a committee of 5 guys tripping over each other all season long...

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 11:24 AM
And I'll ask you like I asked before:

Show me where DV said Priest couldn't handle anything...

He's talked about sharing carries because TRich is too good not to give him the ball.

You are one arrogant son of a *****, but I guarantee you that you can't prove any of it...

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 11:30 AM
Thanks Keg. I knew there were other people that felt this way.

I'm not a homer. Holmes isn't going to rush for 2000 yards...

I think a realistic prediction would be:

Holmes: 225 rushes (about 14 a game) for just over 1000 yards and 45 catches for 380 yards.

Richardson: 120 rushes (about 7 a game) for 580 yards and 35 catches for 300 yards.

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 11:38 AM
I have actually read an article where DV stated that he questions Holmes ability to carry the load. I will find it and post it here.

But again, DV supposedly HATES RBBC. He didn't use it Philly, he didn't use it in St. Louis. Why is he going to use it here? Even if he think Richardson is "too good not to give the ball to" it still goes against his philosophy to split carries. IMO, he's doing it because he knows he has to because Holmes is not an everydown back and DV and the rest of the football world know it.

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 11:42 AM
splitting carries between 2 backs is NOT RBbC, at least IMO...

By the way, thanks for using "IMO"...I think you've always got good counterpoints and such, it just gets under my skin because it seems like you're trying to pass it off as fact...

:D

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 11:46 AM
IMO :D splitting carries down the middle is the same as RBBC. One guy should get 80% of the carries. If one guy doesn't get that many carries that means that he probably isn't good enough, or tough enough.

That's the way Vermiel always did it before, when he gets to KC it changes all the sudden.

Clint in Wichita
08-09-2001, 11:46 AM
Running Back By Committee = Using multiple running backs due to a perceived lack of talent, whether 2 or 5 backs are involved.

I think this is a fair definition. If DV splits time between Holmes and TRich because they're both "too good" to leave on the sideline, then why not trade one of these "studs" for a WR or CB?

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 11:48 AM
DVs actually had a couple of different articles/interviews where he questions Priest's ability to shoulder the load. But he's also got a couple more where he says the guy can do it, so who knows...

We'll be able to tell more after some preseason games, maybe even after Sunday, because, if I'm not mistaken, the starters will be playing the whole first half (except for Green - probably just the 1st quarter).

KCTitus
08-09-2001, 11:51 AM
Regardless how you want to define it, I dont believe that DV will do the same thing that Gun did. If Richardson is having a good game and Holmes is struggling, leave Richardson in there to take the bulk of the carries.

I couldnt stand to see KC rip off a good 10+ yd run only to see whoever trotting off the field after that play to put in Cloud/Moreau/Bennett to take the next one up the center's butt.

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 11:53 AM
Using two back sets is not the same as using an RBbC where backs are assigned different situational roles and placed in different packages. And, for the record, Vermeil used two backs in Philly in the late 70's actually, although the names escape me right now.

The reason we're going to use them both is because 1) neither is a true stud, and 2) they have different skills. It's like Dunn/Alstott, Wheatley/Kaufman (now Garner), etc.

I don't think anyone has called them "studs" but you...

Pitt Gorilla
08-09-2001, 11:53 AM
I remember hearing that Moreau had an incredibly fast (4.2-4.4) forty time. Does that sound familiar?

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 11:54 AM
I hadn't heard that before, Pitt G.

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 12:03 PM
Vermiel used Wilbert Montgomery predominantly in Philly and used Marshall Faulk in St. Louis. He has stated numerous times that he prefers to use one guy and did in the past.

The reason teams use two backs is because one guy isn't good enough to play every down.

keg in kc
08-09-2001, 12:15 PM
You know, you're right - he did use Montogomery. I don't know what I was thinking...

Anyway, this argument is pointless. Having T-Rich and Holmes splitting carries, but with Holmes getting 65 -70% of the work is not a committee, any way you care to slice it. RBbC is dead, halleluja, and may it never rise here again.

Hopefully we'll have a "stud" back of our own eventually. God knows virtually every other team has had one in the last decade...

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 12:27 PM
Wow, I missed all the fun...

I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how this pans out...Priest will be fine and you guys will be ok with it

Ok, well, Cannibal might actually be disappointed if Holmes pans out... :D

Cannibal
08-09-2001, 02:45 PM
It's not that I want the guy to fail. I just don't think he's a legit starting RB. We haven't had one in KC for over a decade and we still don't IMO.

If Holmes finishes in the top 15 RB's in yards, TD's and Yard per carry, [which is being generous IMO because your starting RB would hopefully do better than that] bring this topic back up and I'll be happy to eat crow.

htismaqe
08-09-2001, 03:14 PM
Hey Cannibal, I understand where you're coming from...

You're jaded...but just because Marty and Gun didn't do something doesn't mean it's always going to be the case...

I think we both have a good grasp of the reality of what's going on...my grasp is colored with hope and yours seems to be soured by history...

I don't blame you...