Charlie Casserly on ESPN Radio (1 Viewer)

[Verbal Kint]

As I was heading home tonight Charlie Casserly was being interviewed by Michael Kay on 1050 ESPN Radio in NY. Thought some would like to hear what he had to say [recognizing of course that this is primetime for rhetoric and misdirection]...

Casserly said that the decision to pick up Carr's option doesn't remove the chance they'll draft a QB and threw out the Cincy situation when the Bengals had Kitna and drafted Palmer

to compare Carr to Kitna is downright laughable.

Hey Verbal...on which side of the ledger? Carr has the better pedigree for sure, but Kitna has had much more NFL success. Just to be clear it was Casserly's comparison, not mine. And I don't think he meant to say that Kitna and Carr had similar skill sets [in fact he later went on to say he is convinced David Carr can be a franchise QB which is why they picked up his option], but merely to paint the picture that the Texans aren't necessarily averse to taking a QB with their first pick.

Carr can be a top tier QB in this league if he can stay upright IMO. Kitna in his best season was marginally serviceable for an up and coming Bengals team (Cinci homer here) While I like Kitna for what he is (one of the best backups in the league) Carr could be a top flight starter in a good offense.

 

[Bri]

I think you minimized Kitna's 3500 yards 26 TDs not too long ago by calling him "marginally serviceable"

 

[UnknownCoach]

Hi UC,

I don't disagree. But what I'm saying is that a WR has the opportunity to make much more out of his touches than a RB does.

J

Unfortunately, that point, whether true or false, is not what the reporter is comparing. He's not comparing the positions. He's comparing the players' playmaking abilities. This includes Bush's ability on special teams where a player can make a bigger impact in fewer touches than by playing wide receiver. Bush is not a guy who is expected to just line up in the backfield and run the ball. Running backs, wide recievers, and tight ends are all allowed to move around between the backfield, end of the line, and outside. Any player is allowed to play on special teams. You can talk about being a tailback, fullback, h-back, split back, wing back, tight end, split end, slot receiver, flanker, punt returner, or kick returner all day long. The report wasnt talking about positions or yards per touch. Moss and Bush are playmakers. They make big plays. That's the comparison. Its in no way a "gigantic reach" of a comparison.

 

[Biabreakable]

The comparison to Moss is only to show that an NFL player doenst have to touch the ball all the time to be a difference maker. These people dont give a damn about the numbers. Only about winning football games. It makes no difference to them what the guy averages per touch or how many times he touches it. By putting a big playmaker like Moss or Bush on the field, the other team has to adjust to that player whether he touches the ball or not.

If Bush plays special teams, it wont impact all but very few fantasy leagues. If Bush plays special teams, its an obvious jump in yards per touch. If Bush plays special teams, it will improve that football team's ability to win the game. It wont improve your fantasy team's ability to win.

When the defense has to account for Bush, it improves that team's ability to win regardless of whether or not he actually touches the ball. It only affects your fantasy team if he touches the ball. NFL franchises, homers, and sports experts dont give a damn about the stats. You are the one concerned with the stats.

He's not comparing Bush's stats with Moss's stats. He's only comparing their playmaking ability and affect on an opposing team. That's something that is simuliar. Its not a stretch comparison. Your love of statistics is stretching the words of a football report.

I agree.The threat of what Moss can do to a defense on any play forces defenses to overcompensate in trying to prevent that happening which leaves holes elsewhere that an offense that has Moss can exploit. Be that the running game or passes to a TE or 2nd Wr or screens.

If Bush can make similarly big plays as what Moss has done he will also open up the rest of the offense as the defense must commit extra personel or play packages that overcompensate to stop him.

For example I don't think it was purely coincidence how successful the Lions passing game was when they had Barry Sanders. Sanders forced teams to play differently because of him.

I dont know if Bush is indeed that good. But if he is then the comparison to Moss makes sense to me.

I also agree that posturing this way increases percieved value of the 1st overall pick which may help the Texans to get an offer they cannot refuse for it. This is just good tact to increase the possibility of a team overpaying for the pick.

 

[Verbal Kint]

I think you minimized Kitna's 3500 yards 26 TDs not too long ago by calling him "marginally serviceable"

My point is that was the very top end of his production. He doesn't have the arm to stretch the field, and often makes poor decisions on the field. Don't get me wrong. I like Kitna and think he is a great leader and example for this team. But he was never more than a stop-gap solution for the Bengals whereas I think Carr is still the answer for Houston if they give him a modicum of support.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi UC,

I don't disagree. But what I'm saying is that a WR has the opportunity to make much more out of his touches than a RB does.

J

Unfortunately, that point, whether true or false, is not what the reporter is comparing. He's not comparing the positions. He's comparing the players' playmaking abilities. This includes Bush's ability on special teams where a player can make a bigger impact in fewer touches than by playing wide receiver. Bush is not a guy who is expected to just line up in the backfield and run the ball. Running backs, wide recievers, and tight ends are all allowed to move around between the backfield, end of the line, and outside. Any player is allowed to play on special teams. You can talk about being a tailback, fullback, h-back, split back, wing back, tight end, split end, slot receiver, flanker, punt returner, or kick returner all day long. The report wasnt talking about positions or yards per touch. Moss and Bush are playmakers. They make big plays. That's the comparison. Its in no way a "gigantic reach" of a comparison.

Hi UC,That is what Casserly is comparing. He's saying we shouldn't be worried about Bush not getting a ton of touches. He says that Moss does a lot with few touches.

My point is that Moss is a WR. Bush is a RB. Those touches aren't comprable that way. I'd easily call it a gigantic reach.

It's like comparing a residential realtor to a commercial realtor. The residential guy's average sale is $100,000. The commercial guy's average sale is $300,000.

It's like the residential guy saying he doesn't need to make a ton of sales. "Commercial guy over there only makes a few sales and he does all right".

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

The original report said Casserly said

He made the point of how Randy Moss touches the ball 8 to 10 times a game and is an absolute difference maker and Bush has that kind of ability.

I'm saying Casserly is confusing ability with opportunity. J

 

[Verbal Kint]

The original report said Casserly said

He made the point of how Randy Moss touches the ball 8 to 10 times a game and is an absolute difference maker and Bush has that kind of ability.

I'm saying Casserly is confusing ability with opportunity. J

This is an interesting discussion and I wanted to chime in.I don't see a direct correlation between # of touches and a players ability to force an opposing team to change their gameplan to account for them (and therefore being a difference maker). Using the Moss example, even if he only got 5 touches a game, like he did when hampered by injury, he still affected the DEF by forcing them to double him on virtually every play.

So even if Bush only gets 15 touches, but is only the field for 75% of the offensive plays, the DEF has to account for him on 75% of the plays even if he is only a decoy. (assuming he develops into the threat in the NFL that people think he will be and opposing DEF's learn to fear him)

 

[Jason Wood]

The original report said Casserly said

He made the point of how Randy Moss touches the ball 8 to 10 times a game and is an absolute difference maker and Bush has that kind of ability.

I'm saying Casserly is confusing ability with opportunity. J

This is an interesting discussion and I wanted to chime in.I don't see a direct correlation between # of touches and a players ability to force an opposing team to change their gameplan to account for them (and therefore being a difference maker). Using the Moss example, even if he only got 5 touches a game, like he did when hampered by injury, he still affected the DEF by forcing them to double him on virtually every play.

So even if Bush only gets 15 touches, but is only the field for 75% of the offensive plays, the DEF has to account for him on 75% of the plays even if he is only a decoy. (assuming he develops into the threat in the NFL that people think he will be and opposing DEF's learn to fear him)

Hey Verbal...I agree with you conceptually, but the problem lies in Bush being a RB [or at least perceived that way]. It's very difficult to project your tailback being on the field for 75% of the offensive plays and yet only touch the ball 15 times in a game. The math really doesn't add up unless you're Andy Reid and plan on throwing the ball 7 out of 10 times.

 

[Verbal Kint]

The original report said Casserly said

He made the point of how Randy Moss touches the ball 8 to 10 times a game and is an absolute difference maker and Bush has that kind of ability.

I'm saying Casserly is confusing ability with opportunity. J

This is an interesting discussion and I wanted to chime in.I don't see a direct correlation between # of touches and a players ability to force an opposing team to change their gameplan to account for them (and therefore being a difference maker). Using the Moss example, even if he only got 5 touches a game, like he did when hampered by injury, he still affected the DEF by forcing them to double him on virtually every play.

So even if Bush only gets 15 touches, but is only the field for 75% of the offensive plays, the DEF has to account for him on 75% of the plays even if he is only a decoy. (assuming he develops into the threat in the NFL that people think he will be and opposing DEF's learn to fear him)

Hey Verbal...I agree with you conceptually, but the problem lies in Bush being a RB [or at least perceived that way]. It's very difficult to project your tailback being on the field for 75% of the offensive plays and yet only touch the ball 15 times in a game. The math really doesn't add up unless you're Andy Reid and plan on throwing the ball 7 out of 10 times.

Thanks Woodrow - He may not be a lone back for 75% of the plays, but he'll be lining up at WR on some plays and also possibly be in a 2 back set for some plays (who knows ). Maybe 75% is pushing it, but I can't see him sitting on the bench all that much. They'll find a way to get him on the field.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The NFL draft is not a lot different than your FF draft in that you want to get "value". You will never get value at #1 as the best case scenario is for the guy to be a star. He's got nothing but downside.

Hi Joe,In both FF and the NFL I think you can get value with the #1 pick. Carson Palmer is a good recent example from the NFL. He's worth more than the Bengals are paying for him. Anytime you get somebody who more than lives up to expectations, you get value.

I do think, however, that at least in the NFL, teams tend to overvalue the #1 pick. A team can usually get better value by trading down out of the top five than by trading up into the top five. Evidence.

 

[GregR_2]

Hi UC,

That is what Casserly is comparing. He's saying we shouldn't be worried about Bush not getting a ton of touches. He says that Moss does a lot with few touches.

My point is that Moss is a WR. Bush is a RB. Those touches aren't comprable that way. I'd easily call it a gigantic reach.

J

I kind of think you're making as faulty of a comparison as you're claiming Casserly is though. Going to what you said earlier in the thread, you are correct in arguing that a career 16 ypc WR does more with each touch than Bush will as a RB. But that is neglecting the fact that if we're talking about an 18 touch RB getting more than 3x as many touches as Moss's career average per start.

And I'm not saying the valid comparison is to take 18-ish touches * Bush's expected ypt and compare it to 5.3 * Moss's ypr. I think that is closer than the argument being made, but it's not really what we should be looking at.

What I think Casserly is asserting is that there is an additional gain the rest of the offense gets by teams having to aim their defense to stop Bush, similar to what you see from Moss. In Moss's case it means a safety almost always has to be devoted to double-teaming him in a passing situation. With Bush, will defneses have to go to more zones and fewer blitzes because they can't cover him out of the backfield with a LB? Will some teams with poor coverage LBs and safeties even consider going with a nickel against your base? I'm not sure of the latter, but I think the former is quite possible. And obviously having less pressure applied to the Texans O-line and David Carr is a big benefit for them given their current state.

I don't know that I'd say that Bush's total gain will be equal to Moss's total gain. But I think there is a valid argument to be made that a player, including Bush can have a significant positive impact on the offense beyond what he does with his touches. (Edit to add: Surely I think it's reasonable to say that an 18 touch Bush can have as much impact as some other 25 touch RB does). And he's saying the fact that Moss can have the huge effect he does with only 5-6 touches a game should bode well for what a difference making RB can make with more touches.

 

[yoda]

casserly is going after exactly what he did not talk about... D'Brick. The first player the Texans ever took was Boselli, a bookend left tackle. He is just hyping Cutler to get the jets immature mgt team to jump and trade the 4 + Abraham.

 

[Jason Wood]

casserly is going after exactly what he did not talk about... D'Brick. The first player the Texans ever took was Boselli, a bookend left tackle. He is just hyping Cutler to get the jets immature mgt team to jump and trade the 4 + Abraham.

He's not hyping Cutler at all, far from it. He's actually trying to stifle Cutler's perceived value.

 

[yoda]

casserly is going after exactly what he did not talk about... D'Brick. The first player the Texans ever took was Boselli, a bookend left tackle. He is just hyping Cutler to get the jets immature mgt team to jump and trade the 4 + Abraham.

He's not hyping Cutler at all, far from it. He's actually trying to stifle Cutler's perceived value.

true, I was in the middle of 2 conversations... I actually should not bill for this time, but I will I just can't see Houston drafting a qb... or bush for that matter, left tackles, great ones are rare. DD is solid and Carr just got a stamp of approval, why throw away 3 million??? to draft an unproven, albeit promising, qb from Vanderbilt?

 

[Verbal Kint]

casserly is going after exactly what he did not talk about... D'Brick. The first player the Texans ever took was Boselli, a bookend left tackle. He is just hyping Cutler to get the jets immature mgt team to jump and trade the 4 + Abraham.

He's not hyping Cutler at all, far from it. He's actually trying to stifle Cutler's perceived value.

By downplaying Cutler's value they are increasing the VBD (to apply an FFL term to real life NFL) of Leinart and Young, thereby increasing the perceived value of the top pick.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi UC,

That is what Casserly is comparing. He's saying we shouldn't be worried about Bush not getting a ton of touches. He says that Moss does a lot with few touches.

My point is that Moss is a WR. Bush is a RB. Those touches aren't comprable that way. I'd easily call it a gigantic reach.

J

I kind of think you're making as faulty of a comparison as you're claiming Casserly is though. Going to what you said earlier in the thread, you are correct in arguing that a career 16 ypc WR does more with each touch than Bush will as a RB. But that is neglecting the fact that if we're talking about an 18 touch RB getting more than 3x as many touches as Moss's career average per start.

And I'm not saying the valid comparison is to take 18-ish touches * Bush's expected ypt and compare it to 5.3 * Moss's ypr. I think that is closer than the argument being made, but it's not really what we should be looking at.

What I think Casserly is asserting is that there is an additional gain the rest of the offense gets by teams having to aim their defense to stop Bush, similar to what you see from Moss. In Moss's case it means a safety almost always has to be devoted to double-teaming him in a passing situation. With Bush, will defneses have to go to more zones and fewer blitzes because they can't cover him out of the backfield with a LB? Will some teams with poor coverage LBs and safeties even consider going with a nickel against your base? I'm not sure of the latter, but I think the former is quite possible. And obviously having less pressure applied to the Texans O-line and David Carr is a big benefit for them given their current state.

I don't know that I'd say that Bush's total gain will be equal to Moss's total gain. But I think there is a valid argument to be made that a player, including Bush can have a significant positive impact on the offense beyond what he does with his touches. (Edit to add: Surely I think it's reasonable to say that an 18 touch Bush can have as much impact as some other 25 touch RB does). And he's saying the fact that Moss can have the huge effect he does with only 5-6 touches a game should bode well for what a difference making RB can make with more touches.

Hi Greg,I'm not making any comparison. I'm saying Casserly's comparison is off.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

(Edit to add:  Surely I think it's reasonable to say that an 18 touch Bush can have as much impact as some other 25 touch RB does). 

Hi Greg,That's really the original question. Why is it that you think Bush with 18 carries will have as much impact as a 25 carry guy?

J

 

[GregR_2]

(Edit to add: Surely I think it's reasonable to say that an 18 touch Bush can have as much impact as some other 25 touch RB does).

Hi Greg,That's really the original question. Why is it that you think Bush with 18 carries will have as much impact as a 25 carry guy?

J

Do you think it unreasonable to believe that if a RB lives up to Bush's billing, that on some offensive plays in which Bush does not get his touch in, that the defense schemed to deal with him in a way they wouldn't a "normal" RB, and made themselves vulnerable in a way the Texans were able to exploit?It could mean they swung him out as a wide out and the safety moved over to provide help over top, opening up the middle of the field for the TE or AJ.. but he wouldn't have done that if it was Domanick Davis. It could be that the LB slid out to help out on the underneath routes and as a result called off a blitz they'd have done otherwise. Or that the defense played with a lesser but quicker LB who is better in coverage, which opens up the power running game inside.

Analagous ways to how teams having to devote extra attention to stopping Moss opens up other gains for the offense even if they don't throw him the ball on that play.

I don't know that the gain from Bush will be exactly equal to how Moss opens things up for his team, but I think the analogy is very defensible.

 

[diesel7982]

(Edit to add:  Surely I think it's reasonable to say that an 18 touch Bush can have as much impact as some other 25 touch RB does). 

Hi Greg,That's really the original question. Why is it that you think Bush with 18 carries will have as much impact as a 25 carry guy?

J

Isnt this kind of like asking why Marshall Faulk would be as effective as Eddie George in 1999-00?