RB Depth

To be fair, Hunter was genuinely injured in the end and cut. I don't think they were counting on that, thinking that at worst he could be called up from the PS.

Maybe Jed/Baalke are looking at this right now and thinking of recruiting some experience onto the PS?

Do we know what free agents might be available that would fit the bill?

Hyde, Hayne, Davis, isn't too bad, and I thought they said Bush's injury wasn't too serious.

They brought in Bush because they wanted a back with his playmaking abilities and skill set and Hunter was not a certainty to that guy and has had his own troubles with injuries.

Nobody likely expected Hayne to be this far along at this point, but his development turned things into a numbers game and Hunter came out on the short end of that stick. If Bush merely has a strain he won't miss much time.

If Hyde goes down, we could always bring back Hunter if he is healthy. Or we could turn to the street FA's where there are quite a few guys who could be brought in to help, as at that point we likely go with a committee approach unless someone steps up.

We are and will be fine at RB IMO.

Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Is anyone else concerned, and kind of confused about our depth (or lack thereof) at the RB position?

At first glance, it seems we are (or were) pretty deep. But much like last year when it seemed that way, it won't take much for us to suddenly be relying on some very unproven and/or unreliable (health wise) options.

I really don't understand why we didn't bring in a vet that could serve as more of a true backup to our lead back, as opposed to someone like Bush who is more of a 3rd down/passing situation/returner back with major injury history issues that are already beginning to show.

That's the real concern. We knew going into this season that our lead back would be a guy who has never played a full season as a starter and handled that kind of work load or pressure. And even though Hyde looks tremendous early, if he wears down some and or has any injury issues, what then?

Hunter has already been waived. Bush couldn't make it through the first game. And the other players on our roster are rookies, one of whom had never played football before this year. And as we saw in the first game, will have his issues with a learning curve in the NFL.

I have high hopes for both Davis and Hayne, but neither can be seen as a reliable option until they prove otherwise. And certainly if we had to rely on either (which would be the case currently) as our starter and lead back in the case of Hyde being unavailable (injury, suspension, concussion protocol, ETC...), it's hard to imagine that they would be able to go from never playing a down in the NFL to being able to carry the load on a run heavy, playoff contender team.

Maybe it's just me, but our RB roster depth just never made sense from the get go. Bush and Hunter were always 50/50 at best as to if you would get healthy players or injured ones. And the early indications are more for injured than healthy. Which can't be unexpected. Hunter hasn't been healthy in years and Bush has always been a crap shoot.

How do you dump your only proven vet in Gore and go forward with only a second year guy and essentially only two rookies (one particularly green one) behind him?

Especially when you factor in that Hyde didn't make it through all of last year, when he was sharing carries with Gore, without missing games because of injury.

wtf? He chose to leave, Baalke said many times he wanted Frank back.

Originally posted by KRS-1:
They brought in Bush because they wanted a back with his playmaking abilities and skill set and Hunter was not a certainty to that guy and has had his own troubles with injuries.

Nobody likely expected Hayne to be this far along at this point, but his development turned things into a numbers game and Hunter came out on the short end of that stick. If Bush merely has a strain he won't miss much time.

If Hyde goes down, we could always bring back Hunter if he is healthy. Or we could turn to the street FA's where there are quite a few guys who could be brought in to help, as at that point we likely go with a committee approach unless someone steps up.

We are and will be fine at RB IMO.

we won't sign a FA unless Bush is out for the year and Davis looks real bad. I just can't see that happening.

Bush should be fine in a week or 2. I think we're deeper then most with Hyde, Bush, Davis, Hayne

This is not a concern for jut RB, but every position. Lose Staley and it would be instant panic. Lose Bowman, same thing. Kap goes down and they are in trouble. The nature of the game.

As far as RB in particular, if there were another injury and Bush was still out they have Gaskins on the PS. No doubt the running game would take a hit if Hyde went down, but you can say that other key positions too. Just pray for health, and if not it is next man up and you adjust if necessary.

Originally posted by TexasNiner:
Is anyone else concerned, and kind of confused about our depth (or lack thereof) at the RB position?

At first glance, it seems we are (or were) pretty deep. But much like last year when it seemed that way, it won't take much for us to suddenly be relying on some very unproven and/or unreliable (health wise) options.

I really don't understand why we didn't bring in a vet that could serve as more of a true backup to our lead back, as opposed to someone like Bush who is more of a 3rd down/passing situation/returner back with major injury history issues that are already beginning to show.

That's the real concern. We knew going into this season that our lead back would be a guy who has never played a full season as a starter and handled that kind of work load or pressure. And even though Hyde looks tremendous early, if he wears down some and or has any injury issues, what then?

Hunter has already been waived. Bush couldn't make it through the first game. And the other players on our roster are rookies, one of whom had never played football before this year. And as we saw in the first game, will have his issues with a learning curve in the NFL.

I have high hopes for both Davis and Hayne, but neither can be seen as a reliable option until they prove otherwise. And certainly if we had to rely on either (which would be the case currently) as our starter and lead back in the case of Hyde being unavailable (injury, suspension, concussion protocol, ETC...), it's hard to imagine that they would be able to go from never playing a down in the NFL to being able to carry the load on a run heavy, playoff contender team.

Maybe it's just me, but our RB roster depth just never made sense from the get go. Bush and Hunter were always 50/50 at best as to if you would get healthy players or injured ones. And the early indications are more for injured than healthy. Which can't be unexpected. Hunter hasn't been healthy in years and Bush has always been a crap shoot.

How do you dump your only proven vet in Gore and go forward with only a second year guy and essentially only two rookies (one particularly green one) behind him?

Especially when you factor in that Hyde didn't make it through all of last year, when he was sharing carries with Gore, without missing games because of injury.

Dude. No offense, but you should watch Star Wars

Luke Skywalker was a rookie pilot.

Luke Skywalker took down the Death Star

In comparison, the chubby moustache dude who got blown up was probably a 3rd year starter in the Rebel air force

Just sayin'

Originally posted by KRS-1:
They brought in Bush because they wanted a back with his playmaking abilities and skill set and Hunter was not a certainty to that guy and has had his own troubles with injuries.

Nobody likely expected Hayne to be this far along at this point, but his development turned things into a numbers game and Hunter came out on the short end of that stick. If Bush merely has a strain he won't miss much time.

If Hyde goes down, we could always bring back Hunter if he is healthy. Or we could turn to the street FA's where there are quite a few guys who could be brought in to help, as at that point we likely go with a committee approach unless someone steps up.

We are and will be fine at RB IMO.

Other than Hyde our backups are all question marks.

Hunter - Not ready to come back. Injury settlement. Can't count on him to be back.
Bush - Looked good to start the game but I don't think he will last a full season. And he was out in the 1st Q of the 1st game.
Hayne - Great skills, learning on the fly can't really be trusted to be a solid #2 right now.
Davis - Lets hope he's ready to rock.

We are as fine as any other team. Peterson got 30 yards Monday. Hayne could do that.

Originally posted by MikeD:
Hyde, Hayne, Davis, isn't too bad, and I thought they said Bush's injury wasn't too serious.

This, I'm sure there are about 25 teams that would love this depth.

Bush is fine...just a cramped up calf muscle. It happens. But even if not, Hayne has proven himself already in pass protection (this was huge), plus he can run some as well, short yardage, catch, versatile, etc. What team doesn't have a rookie RB as depth? Mike Davis may be one of the very best esp. behind this OL! And that's only if we need him.

I understand the OP's original concerns about running Hyde into the ground and how physical he is or if an injury here or there comes but Gore was not the answer. The OP seems hidden in his agenda of missing Frank Gore.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by MikeD:
Hyde, Hayne, Davis, isn't too bad, and I thought they said Bush's injury wasn't too serious.

This, I'm sure there are about 25 teams that would love this depth.

Bush is fine...just a cramped up calf muscle. It happens. But even if not, Hayne has proven himself already in pass protection (this was huge), plus he can run some as well, short yardage, catch, versatile, etc. What team doesn't have a rookie RB as depth? Mike Davis may be one of the very best esp. behind this OL! And that's only if we need him.

I understand the OP's original concerns about running Hyde into the ground and how physical he is or if an injury here or there comes but Gore was not the answer. The OP seems hidden in his agenda of missing Frank Gore.

you don't ride the cart to the locker room and miss a Thursday practice for just a "cramped up calf muscle"

Originally posted by SoCold:
you don't ride the cart to the locker room and miss a Thursday practice for just a "cramped up calf muscle"

They were just being cautious, its a strained calf muscle, not a tear

Originally posted by MikeD:

Originally posted by SoCold:
you don't ride the cart to the locker room and miss a Thursday practice for just a "cramped up calf muscle"

They were just being cautious, its a strained calf muscle, not a tear

He was just getting the VIP treatment ... Very Injury Prone