I clearly watched the game, all the games. LJ, Blaylock, PH, they all run hard, they are suppose to.

But as for yesterday,LJ didn't do anything stellar, he did his well, but again, he did nothing that PH or a healthy Blaylock couldn't had done. Blaylock getting his bell rung took him out of the game.

LJ stepped in and did a good job, like he was suppose to do.

So your saying Larry Johnson against the Chargers and Raiders is not any different than Larry Johnson in any other game he's played in?

As much as I am enjoying the cripple fight...[heh, I LOVE that]...
 

Wow you are still saying that shit? Let me restate it for the 3rd time for the slower ones...

I never said DB was better/worse than LJ. All I was trying to say is that LJ hasn't proven anything yet.

You say LJ did well vs Oakland, I say their D blows. You then say, well he did well against SD's #2 D, I say, well, so did Blaylock, which means LJ didn't have to do much if Blaylock could do better than him against that same #2 D.

SIGH.

Forgive me. I'm new to this whole using "reason and logic" thing.

Rausch,

fugged up the timing on that whole "up front and honest" thing at first too...

Wanna bet that spear doesn't draw a fine?

I was with you up until here. I don't understand the "we can't say he IS good based on the fact someone else played good" reasoning.

I like to think someone is good at their position if they play good more often than poorly. Perhaps an 8 or 9 game to 1 ratio...

So far we've seen LJ in two games. Really, 1 and 1/4 games. So far, on early results, he's played great. That's too early to say he's a stud, but the evidence is pointing to him being a good back.

His blocking, if you watched him block, clearly needs to improve. No argument. But is there anything about his ball carrying skills, to this point, that would lead you to believe he ISN'T going to be a good back?

Yes. Apparently "be honest" is woman-speak for "cover your genitals with both hands."

Same player..... Gaz has it nailed right on. LJ takes more time to wind up his run, not a PH, Blaylock, shifty type that can find the hole and then accelerate. LJ has to have the hole wide open and then excel thru it, turning on the speed and power,2 different style of running backs.

LJ can be a good servicable back for us as long as we continue to open big holes for him, BTA, can't most HB's do this ?

LJ is not a stellar player. He will give maximun effort with the talents he has, but the offensive line must open the holes big enough for a truck to go thru for him to excel.

I Definitely agree with Gaz on this subject.
Vlad
Disappointed but expecting Blaylock to be gone

Because I thought it was due to SD's poor run D that enabled both backs to do well. Blaylock is decent and he ran well vs SD, and IMO LJ hasn't shown me anything to make me think he's better than DB. That was my reasoning, once again coming back to the argument that RB's can't be judged by 2 games they did well in.

But hey, it will give you more money to spend on your D, so which do you prefer, Blaylock or the chance to improve your D?

I don't see how anyone can possibly hope to decide whether LJ is good, bad, stellar, or poor based on two games. So far, I'm encouraged, but I'll need a larger sampling of him on the field before I'm willing to call it one way or the other.

I do have to agree that he is deceptively fast. He doesn't look like he's moving with that much speed until you see people trying to catch him, and he keeps gaining on them. If you've ever seen Matt Jones from U of Arkansas run, it's sort of the same type of deceptive speed with a long-legged stride. I think the comparisons to Jackson from St. Louis are equally justified. Finally, I really liked seeing what he could do on short yardage situations. Dude knows how to fall forward and gain that extra yard.

In the negative, he did get tripped up and run into his blockers quite a few times. If he can fix that, he'll be even more deadly, because this is slowing him down. He's a downhill runner. He needs to hit the hole full speed and keep moving. Getting tripped up or running into blockers takes away his momentum, which takes away his strength as a runner.

Well, we seem to only have two options: Sign Blaylock and trade LJ, or keep LJ and let Blaylock move on (I would expect to Chicago or the Cards were he could compete for a starting job.)

Of those two options, keeping LJ is probably the cheapest (we don't have to take the hit from the SB in LJ's contract...) and we need the extra $$$ to bring in defensive FA's...

We wasted 5 to 6 mil in cap space this year so IMO the less than a milion we would lose on LJ would not likely be that much of a problem to keep Blaylock. But I know it is not going to happen and have resigned myself to this fate.