Why do you think the Invescos never knew that Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Quentin Griffin and Rueben Droughns could be good RB's before their respective seasons season started....


....because their oline doesn't cheat in practice.

I hear ya ... but, Ruben has been around the block. Nobody had any expectations, the others were all rookies.

I think he was drafted in the third round, not sure. His rep was that he was a very tough runner with decent vision. Not a lot of breakaway speed and average hands. I think he also had an injury while in Detroit. Looks like returning kicks has helped his vision and I'm liking his running style. More like T. Davis than B. Sanders.


A few weeks ago some talking head (I don't remember who, someone on the OrangeMane posted the comment and I didn't see the broadcast) said that Denver's running game looked a lot like a Special Teams play. The O-Line was like the wedge and the RB was like the return guy. The RB is supposed to follow the flow of the zone blocking scheme and exploit the play. It made sense the way it was explained. Droughns showed a lot during his return duties and several fans on the Mane were hoping he would get a shot. He's looking like the key to our offense right now.

Voted yes because his 176 yards and a touchdown last week was one of the major reasons I won in ff. Hopefully he can keep getting 150+ yards every game and somehow Denver can still lose the rest of their games.

Truthfully, I was going to post about four weeks ago that Reuben Droughns was the Broncos' best running back. Being in Denver, I'm forced to watch them occasionally when real football isn't on (smack alert), and the few carries he got in preseason and/or early in the season made me think that he was legitimate, particularly a few kickoff returns where I had to grudgingly admit that he was very impressive.

That said, though, he got 170+ yards last week by carrying the ball almost 40 times. That's a good sign of endurance, but it's still only 4 yards per carry. While I'd be stoked if he was on my team, there's a difference between high performance and just getting a truckload of carries, and I guess we'll find out where he stands soon.

Just 4 yards a carry ... I can live with that. That means every 3 carries equals a 1st down.

Last year, Holmes got 4.4 yards per carry and that is what he has in 2004. I realize 30 and 38 carries is a lot, but 193 and 170+ yards in back to back weeks is awesome whether it is off 25 or 35 carries.

Yeah, I'm not dogging the guy, because 170 yards in a game is good even if it's Eddie George getting it on 85 carries. I'm just saying that an average back can rack up a lot of yards if they're carrying the ball 30+ times a game.

It's like the Hall of Fame question. Is an average back with a lot of carries in the same league as a superback with the same yards in fewer carries? Their end production is the same, but I'd still say that a top-notch back has to be above the 4.3 or 4.4 mark for an entire year, and the elite ones have to be over 4.7 or so.

I'm with ya. I think timing is key also... Carolina and then the Raiders? Who's up next? Oh, the PATHETIC Bengals' rush defense...

Sometimes that is all that matters, but I can't wait to see what he can do against a good run defense. Hence ... the reason for the thread.

I love what he has done, but I'm not 100% sold that he is the next big thing just yet. I'm curious as to what you all thing as an outsider looking in and I realize that there will be a lot of "fluke" comments, but overall ... I think we'll get some good responses. And we have ... so, thanks guys.

I think the Jury is still out, part of it will depend on health. He keeps his legs moving and never gives up, which you have to like. But at the same time, those big bruisers don't seem to stay very healthy. People are going to have some more tape on him now as well, so we will have to see.

Yeah, the thing I thought was interesting is when he was on the NFL Channel standing next to Terrell Davis - he was about the same size and didn't look like the big bruising "fullback" that I considered him to be. Time will tell.

So far he "looks" like he could really be something. But I think you might want to see him in a few more games and against more defenses. And maybe better defenses.

Like someone said in this thread, wait until he's been seen enough for defenses to start planning better for him. That will probably be a better indicator.

But, (hate to say this) so far, so good.

Oh, and bad luck to your team going forward! (Obligatory smack...)

I think he is the best back that denver has, 2 good games don't make him a star, atleast not yet. He has been a workhorse though the last 2 games.

Cramping? All this time I thought 'Rube' a was guy.

Tony Richardson has put up over 150 yards before.

I'm not sold yet....but who knows.

He's obviously better in short yardage than WEbster.

Webster ... that's funny! ROFL