OK, let me ask this, if we had a need for another RB for any reason (Thomas is as dumb as J. Allen?, Clay is hurt? Worried about keeping Bush healthy etc), who would you have picked up besides Johnson (who know's the offense?) I really don't see a big problem with it. PS, I just see that Thomas is injured.
That's the way I understand it as well. Add that to the media reports of the injuries leading to the signing and I see a different motive.
There are many moves teams make on final cuts that many do not understand. Teams are looking at who other teams may or may not want, who they can get through to the practice squad, who they may be able to add off other team's releases, who they may be able to trade, etc. It's a very complicated procedure, and sometimes players you want are exposed because you believe you can get them back. I think LJ was someone we wanted to kepp, and are now doing so. I like the move.
It's pretty simple Fin... Injuries are to be expected. Second, rookies are unknown commodities. Thirdly, the rest of their stable of backs they've been developing have been consisntently unspectacular. Seeing all of the above as true, it was ridiculous for them to put themselves in a position where they needed to dredge the retired RB wire to get a vet back in here. Good FO's plan for these situations. If R. Brown was here to compete and/or backup the rook were not having to resign a retired Larry Johnson out of FA to field a serviceable backfield. To directly address what I see wrong with the resigning directly , I'd say it's absurd that they cut him at all seeing everything stated above. I'm not buying the "save money on his contract deal" either. Even if money was the motivating factor, how important was saving that sum of cash and gambling no one else would take a flier on Johnson and picking him up after we released him? Are we saying saving maybe 500K by cutting and resigning is worth the risk of losing the last option at having a vet back on this team is a good gamble? The amount of money these teams throw around in contracts a year is staggering and the savings from cutting and resigning Larry Johnson is negligible comparatively. There is nothing about how they've handled the RB issue or the OL issue that gives me confidence.
This pretty sums it up for me. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ack-larry-johnson-after-daniel-thomas-injury/ And with Thomas pulling a hammy, its what they did. I think the better question is what we have in Thomas? Is he the second coming of J. Allen, or just off to a rough start?
The biggest point is not about whether they should have signed Larry Johnson. It's that they never should have been in this situation to begin with. It was poor planning and personnel management.
...... especially if they've been entertaining the idea of Lex to fullback all off season, which they likely have.
I think it shows good planning, Thomas got hurt and now you have Johnson to bring in. Who would you want? Tiki Barber?
Geez...... They should neve have been in a position where the entire RB corp. is unproven. Injuries happen. Rookies are unreliable. Bush has never shown he can stay healthy. Letting 2 vet backs leave that may be on the decline but are clearly better than signing a retired Larry Johnson off the street to be your vet back was an absurd decision. If either R. Brown or R. Williams had simply been resigned were not even worrying about having to pick up someone off the trash heap to man the RB position. They went into the season unprepared at this important position.
I don't know, Ricky burned his bridges and Brown is always hurt. I would have liked to see Brown back, but that shipped sailed. You can criticize drafting Thomas, but I don't see a problem with Johnson as a back-up. I'm still mad we didn't draft mallett. the RB situation never bothered me.
Its good planning to have a vet that you can bring in, I don't think its pathetic at all (I was joking about Barber!)
Yeah.... that "dime a dozen" line dosen't hold water with me. I gave straight forward points of why it's pretty easy to make the argument they went into the season at this position unprepared. All I get back is RB's are a dime a dozen. Bottom line is you don't cut bait with an established vet before you know what you have to replace them with.
I don't think Ricky or Ronnie would have re-signed to compete with Bush and Thomas. I also don't think they will be any more effective than Larry Johnson, who looked fine in preseason. Either way, if Larry Johnson, Ronnie Brown, or Ricky Williams are seeing significant carries, then their teams aren't doing very well.
Yes the Brown ship sailed. However, that does not mean the FO is off the hook for the move. If a personnel move proves to be a mistake and hurts the team it's very relevant to discuss it and hold it as an example of the body of work turned in by a mgmt. team.
It was time to go a different direction at the running back position. Sure you may take some lumps but no worse than we did with R&R.
I gave straight forward points why it is pretty easy to make the argument that they went into the season fully prepared. Both of those estabilished vets were players over 30, and both of them were still availible when Miami got Bush and Thomas. So they knew exactly who they were going to replace them with. Injuries do happen, however you cannot plan for them.
Here's a list of guys available as of yesterday (besides Johnson, of course): And here's a list of the guys who were available after cutdown day, if these meatheads had any foresight at all and could anticipate needs beyond the immediate; seeing how, you know—they work with these guys every day and might have presumed a problem a few days later:
I thought it showed foresight when they signed a a vet guy who could come in and get some experience in the offense during the preseason and still be available later on after cuts if they needed to bring him back. If they couldn't anticipate any needs beyond the immediate they never would've signed him to begin with because we had a healthy stable of backs (except for Clay) for I believe all of the preseason.
Nobody on that list strikes my fancy anymore than Johnson, the only two I think you caould argue are Sheets and Grigsby since they know the offense and we have 3 days to go before game one.
Yes you can plan for them. You can have legitimate depth on your team. In addition they did not have "replacements" for Brown or Williams. Again lets review....... Rookies are unknown commodities. Bush has NEVER been an every down back and has NEVER been able to stay healthy in a limited role let alone a featured one. These are not responsible replacements for a featured tailback on a team that wants to dominate by running the ball. If you think they are then we are clearly in a different place and hold much different expectations of what it takes to build a winning team.
Couldn't the same argument be made—in spades—against Larry Johnson? The point is that we once had choices, and passed on making any of those choices, deciding instead to go into camp with a injury-prone speedster and a rookie, and a bunch of role players behind them. And then, even with better choices still available, we signed Larry Johnson. And THEN, after cutdown day, with even more choices, we did nothing, although Daniel Thomas has been injured for a while by that point, so that a few days later, we re-sign Larry Johnson. It's about the intelligence to foresee events, and these guys don't have it. And it's about good decisions, which, made well, could mitigate a lack of foresight; and they don't have that ability, either.
Again, who? That list Nabo had was has beens and have never beens. And I don't think we are going to be a running team this year, I see more passing. (Just my opinion).
Decisions on who will be a teams starting tailback is making a mountain out of a mole hill? Were you one of the ones giving Wanny a pass for years of bad moves as well?
So in their 53 man roster they should have 7 runningbacks in case two get injured? They did have replacements for both Brown and Williams. Just because it is unknown doesn't mean it isn't a replacement. Both Williams and Brown are on the tail end of their careers, especially Williams. Brown also gets hurt a lot. A rookie and Bush were suitible replacements for both Williams and Brown.
I've stated it in numerous posts. A good team does not let themselves get in this position to begin with. You don't let established vets walk before having a player you feel strongly about to replace him. In this situaion that means you don't put all your eggs into a rookie who has yet to do anything in the NFL yet and a 3rd down back only later to be forced to pick through player scrap piles to man the position.
You mean, they meant all along to have a guy on standby that no other team in the league could possibly be interested in? I guess you don't see the huge absurdity of that theory. And as far as a stable...maybe one with one pony, a fast horse who already broken 3 legs, and a guy headed to the Fullback position Just picking one guy from the list, I think Brian Westbrook would have been an interesting choice because of his ability to catch out of the backfield; I'd feel good about having more than one proven guy who can do that, seeing how much this new O uses that position as a receiver. And you could argue that Westbrook is "done," but any more than Johnson? Anyway, that's just one guy; there are many on that recent list, and more on the cutdown list if they could have just anticipated that a player who had been gimpy for two weeks might possibly have remained gimpy going into week one.
They had the "foresight" to bring in a guy, let him learn the system, cut him, and bring him back for less money and even less risk (which was extremely low to begin with). Who would you want from that list? There was a pile of **** to pick from and we picked up a turd that was once filet mignon instead of a turd that was once sausage. Edit: You answered question on who you'd want in post above.
Some people absolutely cannot argue their own points of view without denigrating and belittling others. It's a shame.
Who said a team needs to keep 7 RBs. Talk about really dramatizing something to take the focus off the issue. Yes Brown and Williams are at the tail end of their careers. It's why drafting a RB was a fine move. However, just because you draft a young prospect means nothing. YOu don't know if he's going to make an impact at all. That's why you keep Vets at positions to make sure you're covered. You don't cut an established vet... tail end of his career or not.... to go with a rookie. Not to mention the fact that the NFL has become to a majority a 2 back league. Teams know this and prepare by making sure they have at least one proven back with some teams going out of their way to make sure they have 2 proven backs along with a project player or rookie at the position along with a 3rd down type back. As I said before, if you think an unproven rookie and a 3rd down back are legitimate replacements for an established back then we have TOTALLY differrent viewpoints on what it takes to build a competitive team.
All I'm saying, without even singling out one guy or another that I would have preferred, is that Johnson is the wrong choice.
Obviously Miami thinks Thomas is that guy, but he tweaked a hammy. You argue that we signed Johnson (An established Vet who didn't play last year due to legal troubles) yet we signed a established vet in Johnson (who looked good in preseason). I guess we will agree to disagree. To me Brown and Williams were gone, I was ok with what we had. If we drafted Ingram in round one, would you feel the same way? Or is it because Thomas is a relative unknown? (Honest question) They always say rookie RB's can perform the fastest out of all the positions. I can understand the Bush concerns.
