If Emmitt's such a prize, why is Houston after Stacy Mack?

[SECTION 11]

Strange?

No, not really.

 

[Ed B]

Because they're stupid.

Mack will be a bust as a starter.

 

[SECTION 11]

Signing Emmitt is an absolutely horrible idea.

He will poison the locker room.

 

[brews]

It makes sense for me for Houston to sign Emmitt. It would be a great PR move for them, and they are not going anywhere for a while anyway.

 

[SweetD]

I am not to sure about him being a pill. I have not played with him or been in a Cowpucks locker.(Thank God). But it would help change the state of the Cards Organization. Come on the Cards are letting people know we are trying to be winners. You finally signed some free agents.(PS Good Ones) and now you are looking at a Hall of Fame RB to groom your up and coming Star. It is not like Emmit will be doing 100% of the running. Shipp is the future and when Emmit goes down with an injury Shipp will have all the carries he can handle. I like allot of people on this board hate the Cowpukes but we should not let that cloud are perception. Smith is a great player, do you think anyone in the NBA would pass on having Jordan on their team. Smith will come at a reasonable price and it will be for 2-3 years I think it will be less than Blakes with a little more bonus. If we get Smith I will welcome him and welcome the Cowpuke fans and hopefully they we will convert them to Cardizium. I welcome any new fan just like on this board. Anything to get this team on TV and Monday night.

One man doesn't make or break a football team. It is the best most exciting team sport.

George H. Allen - “Football is one-third offense, one-third defense, and one-third special teams.”

Smith is not even= to a 1/3

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Ed B
Because they're stupid.

Mack will be a bust as a starter.

Depends on the cost. Carolina got Stephen Davis 5 years 13.5 million, which I think is a great deal.

If Mack signs for less than that I think it's a great deal for the Texans.

People forget how good Mack has been playing quite a bit because Fred Taylor is hurt so much.

2001 he started 11 games, played in all 16, 877 yards, 4.1 YPC
and 9 TD's.

2002 he started 0 games played in all 16, 436 yards 4.4 YPC and 9 td's.

Remember he is often getting nothing but short yardage runs so over 4 ypc is impressive given how many of his carries come from 1-2 yard line. In 2001 he started 6 consecutive games at the end of the year, 112 carries 467 yards 3 TD's.

Mack is not a "great" RB but I think he's very good and highly underrated he's extremely effective in short yardage situations. What he's not is a blocking FB which is what they intended him to be when they got him in Jacksonville.

If Shipp hadn't emerged I'd be leading the campaign to sign Mack here in Arizona I think he's a very good NFL RB.

If they pay him more than Stephen Davis got I think they overpaid.

 

[Billy Flynt]

Cheaper.

 

[kerouac9]

Stacey Mack is just as good as Marcel Shipp. No better, no worse.

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Stacey Mack is just as good as Marcel Shipp. No better, no worse.

What do you base this on?

 

[kerouac9]

Both guys are just not gamebreakers. Their stats are basically the same. Mack played behind an All-Pro in Freddie Taylor in J-Ville, but posted decent numbers behind a good O-Line and a scrambler QB and at least one top-flight WR. Sound like another back in a similar situation?

I'm sure that if you switched Stacey Mack and Marcel Shipp, they'd have basically the same numbers. I think that Mack might be the more consistent back overall, but their numbers would be the same.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by kerouac9
Stacey Mack is just as good as Marcel Shipp. No better, no worse.

They're different players though. Shipp has more breakaway ability and is a better receiver. Mack is more powerful(not that Shipp lacks power Mack is just a tank) and Mack is a better blitz pickup guy(although he's not a good lead blocker as a FB).

I think they're certainly about equal, Mack basically did in 2001 what Shipp did for us last year, replace the injured starter and do it so well he created a RB controversy. The difference was Jacksonville chose to stick with Fred Taylor where we chose to bench TJ.

 

[X-29Fan]

Originally posted by SweetD
I am not to sure about him being a pill. I have not played with him or been in a Cowpucks locker.(Thank God). But it would help change the state of the Cards Organization. Come on the Cards are letting people know we are trying to be winners. You finally signed some free agents.(PS Good Ones) and now you are looking at a Hall of Fame RB to groom your up and coming Star. It is not like Emmit will be doing 100% of the running. Shipp is the future and when Emmit goes down with an injury Shipp will have all the carries he can handle. I like allot of people on this board hate the Cowpukes but we should not let that cloud are perception. Smith is a great player, do you think anyone in the NBA would pass on having Jordan on their team. Smith will come at a reasonable price and it will be for 2-3 years I think it will be less than Blakes with a little more bonus. If we get Smith I will welcome him and welcome the Cowpuke fans and hopefully they we will convert them to Cardizium. I welcome any new fan just like on this board. Anything to get this team on TV and Monday night.

One man doesn't make or break a football team. It is the best most exciting team sport.

George H. Allen - “Football is one-third offense, one-third defense, and one-third special teams.”

Smith is not even= to a 1/3

IMO, they need to try to be winners by grooming and keeping their hands on their own future hall of famers. Not by signing a cast-off hall of famer in the twilight of his career.

I for one don't hate the Cowboys, so I believe that I can be objective. IMO, Smith "was" a very good back in a perfect situation.

Also, IMO, Emmitt Smith is/was no Michael Jordan. Jordan was a great player, no matter who you put around him. Having said this, I don't know if there can be a "Michael Jordan" in football, because it is such a team sport, in which each player's success hedges upon the success of his teammates. In basketball, a Jordan could dominate individually, even if his team stunk up the place. An Emmitt Smith could not do the same. Without a good passing game (a balanced attack), and good blocking, he was not the type of back that made something from nothing. His career was a plethora of runs through enormous holes off tackle. Granted, he had good vision, and was quick to the hole. But, he did have holes to run through. Unlike say a Barry Sanders who often had to make something out of nothing.

Sign him? For the vet minimum, yes. But, he will probably get say 2.5 million dollars (a guess). Which will show the Cards are not attempting to build a winner, but IMO, to make a PR move. That would be 2.5 million that could be spent more wisely elsewhere IMO. 2.5 million that might would land a receiver or two that would help to keep defenses from stacking "8 men in the box", thus allowing the Cards' young backs to gain some yards.

The irony is that the Cards own strict interpretation of the salary cap makes signing a "has been player" for PR even more foolish. They must make the most out of every salary cap dollar spent IMO.

 

[Sandan]

Section 11, while I obviously don't know, Emmit did not look like a guy with a chip on his shoulder today.

He was friendly and open and seemed quite happy to talk to the fans.

He didn't look like a guy would be have a bad attitude, just the reverse.

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by brews
It makes sense for me for Houston to sign Emmitt. It would be a great PR move for them, and they are not going anywhere for a while anyway.

Wow kinda sounds like us "it would be a PR move"

 

[JeffGollin]

Why is an apple different from an orange?

Emmitt brings intangibles to the table that Stacey doesn't bring.

Presumably, Mack has certain RB qualities that may be different - or that Emmitt may no longer have.

 

[ChiCard]

Originally posted by brews
It makes sense for me for Houston to sign Emmitt. It would be a great PR move for them, and they are not going anywhere for a while anyway.

How long do yout hink he'd last behind that line? How many sacks did they give up last year?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by ChiCard
How long do yout hink he'd last behind that line? How many sacks did they give up last year?

Good questions ChiCard!

 

[Shane]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Good questions ChiCard!

Actually pass protection and Run blocking are 2 absolutely different things so it is a totally irrelevant question!

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by ChiCard
How long do yout hink he'd last behind that line? How many sacks did they give up last year?

true but the line will get better and remember Carr was a rookie, he had a lot to do with the number of sacks that were allowed.

Emmitt is on the downside of his career I think it would be a mistake for the Texans to pursue him at the expense of Mack who has a more realistic shot of starting there for several years if they don't draft a McGahee type and wait for him to heal.

In our case I think bringing Emmitt as a backup is fine, if he wants to start I think it's a mistake.