I'm calling it now...

barrett · #1 02-04-2010, 09:53 PM

Who says we need a big guy? We had red zone and short yardage issues. You don't need a big guy for short yardage. The best 3 short yardage guys of all-time are probably LT, Marcus Allen, and Emmitt Smith. Big guys are great to wear on a defense or punish tacklers. Guys who hit the hole fast, hard, and low are great short yardage guys.

I for one would love a guy at RB who specializes at scoring TDs.

Roy P · #2 02-04-2010, 10:30 PM

LT knows how to pick up the Blitzer. My only concern is that he still thinks too much of himself. He isn't that same guy he was 3 years ago, but he has the attitude that he is. We don't need a whiner who complains that he's not the main cog of the offense. Now, if he eats some humble pie and takes a reasonable contract, says that he's here to contribute, then I'm all for it. If he wants to make more "LT Shuffle" videos, then I'll pass. I suppose my main reservation is his attitude more than his production. Taking a look at the last 2 seasons, I can guess his production.

171 carries, 550 yards, 8 TDs That's about what I'd expect from Slaton too.

painekiller · #3 02-04-2010, 11:52 PM

I would not waste a roster spot on a worn out back. Draft me some young fresh legs with low mileage on them. Sorry!

nunusguy · #4 02-05-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

Who says we need a big guy? We had red zone and short yardage issues. You don't need a big guy for short yardage. The best 3 short yardage guys of all-time are probably LT, Marcus Allen, and Emmitt Smith. Big guys are great to wear on a defense or punish tacklers. Guys who hit the hole fast, hard, and low are great short yardage guys.

I for one would love a guy at RB who specializes at scoring TDs.

I hear you. Marcus Allen for example, not a real big back, no doubt was one of the greatest short-yardage backs ever. But I also think there's a correlation between a back with size/strength and his ability to run inside the tackles where the traffic is relatively heavy, especially where the defense stacks a lot of bodies up at the los in short-yardage scenarios.
But whoever said bringing in LT is an Ahman Green redux got it right.

barrett · #5 02-05-2010, 09:33 AM

I think Roy nailed it. LT has always had a huge ego. But if he is truly ok with being nothing but a redzone guy who gets a 4-6 carries inside the 10 and maybe 8-10 total per game, then I am interested. Because the guy is still good in short yardage and at scoring TDs. After all, in a horrible year last year for one of the league's worst running teams, he still ran for 12 TDs. And after watching our team pretend Chris Brown was a goalline back (and losing three games because of it), I would have no problem with those carries going to LT instead.

If the signing bonus is low but the base and incentives are high, then you go into training camp with Foster, Slaton (if healthy), LT, and a rookie back. Then, if the rookie back can push one of those guys out the door you are happy about it. If not, at least you're not giving chris brown carries.

nero THE zero · #6 02-05-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrett

I think Roy nailed it. LT has always had a huge ego. But if he is truly ok with being nothing but a redzone guy who gets a 4-6 carries inside the 10 and maybe 8-10 total per game, then I am interested. Because the guy is still good in short yardage and at scoring TDs. After all, in a horrible year last year for one of the league's worst running teams, he still ran for 12 TDs. And after watching our team pretend Chris Brown was a goalline back (and losing three games because of it), I would have no problem with those carries going to LT instead.

If the signing bonus is low but the base and incentives are high, then you go into training camp with Foster, Slaton (if healthy), LT, and a rookie back. Then, if the rookie back can push one of those guys out the door you are happy about it. If not, at least you're not giving chris brown carries.

That's pretty much it, right there. He's a veteran who can bring winning experience, football savvy, leadership, and, while not the threat he used to be, is still better than at least half (and maybe all) of our RB right now. I'd sign him to pair him with a high draft pick (Dwyer, Matthews, or Dixon.)

HPF Bob · #7 02-06-2010, 12:50 AM

Not to start any arguments but one of the best short-yardage backs I ever saw was Priest Holmes.

I kinda concur with the rest of the group. I'd sign him if he can handle having a reduced role for less money. If he still wants to be top dog, I'll pass.

NBT · #8 02-07-2010, 05:05 PM

The talking heads on the NFL network at the SB are predicting he goes to either Seatle or Houston. I don't think he would be worth the money it would take to get him

popanot · #9 02-08-2010, 07:30 AM

Oops... I just poted something similar to this in the Slaton injury thread before seeing this thread... Yes, I could see LT coming here, and yes, I'd sign him as long as he comes fairly cheap and knows/accepts his role. He's certainly an upgrade over most of what we have now and I personally think he still has a little bit left in the tank.