What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Scouts Inc. says W. Green will beat out Suggs (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

George Jefferson

Footballguy
Summarization courtesy of packersfan via ESPN Insider:

Cleveland: Scouts Inc says Green will beat out Suggs for the job, saying he's putting the pieces of his life back together. Also, they believe he's more explosive than Suggs and the coaching staff wants to build his confidence back up by keeping him as the starter. However, one slip-up and Suggs will be in there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:yes: Even the well-respected scouting service can recognize the obvious. It's William Green's job in Cleveland, now maybe the Lee Suggs lovers can start to realize the obvious too.

 
I'll give you a dollar to post something other than "Look at the good William Green news!"

SERIOUSLY

Colin
Didn't want to make a big deal about it but if a mod is going to......this blurb needed it's own thread? :no: :thumbdown:

 
That's funny, good one Colin :thumbup: I got both of them. Just as long as their isn't any running back by committee I'm happy

 
That's funny, good one Colin :thumbup: I got both of them. Just as long as their isn't any running back by committee I'm happy
Unfortunatly, I don't think you'll be happy then.
 
FYI- an interesting bit on Suggs

http://www.fftoday.com/articles/waldman/gc_suggs.htm

The Weekly Gut Check - Vol. 4

RB Lee Suggs, CLE

6/22/04

The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information. This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.

Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic, he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider, or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast as you can!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gut Check likes guys that play with chips on their shoulders. For a fantasy football owner, a player with talent and something to prove is a great intangible. Travis Henry, Steve Smith, and Priest Holmes responded to challenges from their own teams with excellent years. Henry carried the disappointing Bills’ offense on bad ribs and a fractured leg in response to Buffalo’s selection of an injured Willis McGahee in the first round—a pick made despite Henry’s 1,438 yards and 13 TDs the year before. Steve Smith’s team made it known during the first half of the season that their WR wasn’t worth playmaker money. Smith responded with enough big plays for the Panthers to come within minutes of the Lombardi Trophy. And all Priest Holmes did in response to Carl Peterson’s attempt to play hardball was to mount a record-breaking campaign.

Although these three players had an entire season to prove their point, the subject of this week’s Gut Check only had two games—and he was fortunate to get those. But this player responded by playing with a chip on his shoulder the size of a two by four. The player giving notice in the season finale that he’ll be walking tall in 2004 is Browns’ RB Lee Suggs. Once projected as the top back in the 2003 draft, Suggs dropped to round four despite the fact that Willis McGahee was a first round pick with a serious knee injury. Furthermore, McGahee had a more serious form of the same injury that Suggs experienced nearly two years ago, but sufficiently proved he had recovered with an impressive senior campaign.

When the Browns made it known that Suggs would get increased playing time against the Ravens and Bengals, The Gut Check took notice. On the surface it didn’t appear to be a big deal. Considering William Green the Browns’1st round pick from 2002, really came on at the end his rookie year, the announcement didn’t seem like anything more than a rookie getting some experience as a losing season comes to a close. But The Gut Check believes the Browns knew what they were getting in Lee Suggs. In hindsight, it’s clear the Browns saw enough from Green week in and week out to reconsider their options. After Suggs’ performance against the Bengals and Green’s private life going publicly astray, the Browns made the starting RB spot open for competition in 2004 and Suggs enters the season atop the depth chart. The Gut Check says Lee Suggs is a 4th round steal and a top 15 RB in 2004.

It’s clear the Browns feel they have to look at other possibilities in case William Green doesn’t turn his life around. William Green is purported to be a nice guy that experienced a childhood too difficult and thoroughly documented to re-explain here. Unfortunately, Green’s had enough public problems for the Browns to realize Green could let them down as a player in the same way he’s let himself down as a person. Nonetheless, this is not the reason why the Brown’s opened the door for Suggs.

Truth be known, Lee Suggs was always a better back than William Green. Although the Gut Check believes Green still has a shot at a bright NFL future if he continues his personal recovery, Suggs will be the complete package. If you aren’t an avid follower of the NFL draft, Mel Kiper among others, rated Suggs as his top RB on the board leading up to the 2003 draft. Suggs’ stock dropped slightly his senior season because he was coming off an ACL tear from the year before and Kevin Jones ate into his carries. So why did Suggs drop all the way to the fourth round when he beat out a 2004 first round pick for the starting job at Va. Tech less than a year after tearing his ACL? Doctors discovered a torn rotator cuff during pre-draft examinations and projected Suggs to be out for an entire season.

But as we can see with the ancient Rich Gannon, a rotator cuff heals a lot quicker than an ACL and even so, the Bills didn’t hesitate to grab McGahee fresh off his torn ligament. With that said, Suggs’ dive in the draft was as stupefying to the Gut Check as it must have been to Lee Suggs himself. This is clearly a running back with first round ability in mid-round clothing. Leading up to his junior year, Suggs was known as an elusive back with blazing speed—he ran in the 4.3-4.4, 40’s prior to tearing his ACL (4.29 if you believe the SI people at Va. Tech—although I wouldn’t drink the Kool-Aid on that one). Yet Suggs greatest asset has been his ability to run between the tackles. Scouts touted Suggs as one of the best goal line options in college football. You just don’t see a between the tackles runner with good outside speed and goal line instincts every day, especially not belonging to a high-character guy.

There shouldn’t have been too many questions about his ACL. Although Suggs spent last season at Virginia Tech sharing some of the load with Kevin Jones, he still put up terrific stats. Gaining 1300 yards on the ground against equal or lesser competition than Suggs was enough for other backs to be drafted ahead of him. Sharing time with a top prospect shouldn’t be a negative, either. It just means there won’t be as much wear and tear to his body. In a sense, Suggs may have added another year or two to his NFL career, which should make him even more valuable.

The timetable for recovery from an ACL injury is usually two years. All we have to do is look at Jamal Lewis’s career to project what could happen with Lee Suggs. Both exploded onto the scene, lost a year to injury, and albeit a step slower, returned to produce at a high level prior to the draft. Lewis eventually regained his speed and suddenness two years after his first injury—as with this year, two years after his second ACL tear! It stands to reason that Suggs will regain more his breakaway speed that he put on display at the end of 2003.

Based on what Suggs showed his senior year just a year removed from his ACL tear, the Gut Check to believes the Brown’s front office knew they were getting a steal. They had to know, because the front office negotiated with Suggs as if he were a top pick. Think about it: When was the last time a 4th round pick, one year removed from a torn ACL and fresh off rotator cuff surgery, demanded an incentive laden contract or threatened to hold out and re-enter next year’s draft? Even so, can you think of a player that actually got the deal he wanted? Why would a team accept these demands from a 4th round pick when their 1st round pick just finished a seven game tear of 726 yards and 5 TDs?

Probably a team that has seen enough from Green to hedge its bets: Green struggled for over half the season with his pass blocking, receiving, and knowledge of the playbook. When Green did explode, five of the last seven defenses he faced were ranked 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, and 25th against the run. Maybe the Browns noticed early symptoms of behavior that foretold what came to be. In Green’s defense, he certainly had impressive moments. It’s logical to say the drafting of Suggs was just a matter of adding depth to a backfield that didn’t have a player with three down potential. But the contract speaks volumes about what Cleveland sees in Suggs. Ultimately, Green’s personal life has made too much news for the Browns to not at least look elsewhere as a precaution.

Although Suggs missed camp due to his torn rotator cuff, it was less serious than expected. He would actually be available for the 2003 season. Once Suggs joined the team, he did a good enough job learning his assignments to impress Butch Davis immediately. From just the standpoint of preparation, Suggs had a more promising start than Green did as a rookie. And with two games left, Lee Suggs answered the Brown’s questions about his potential. Although a 20 carry, 68-yard performance isn’t that impressive—the Baltimore Ravens were one of the more physical run defenses in 2003 and Suggs showed glimpses in his first start behind a weak offensive line.

But it was Suggs 26 carry, 186 yards, and 2 TDs against the Bengals that thrust him into the spotlight. Suggs 78-yard touchdown run was a display of vision, burst, moves in the open field, and breakaway speed. Even if you take this one run away from his final stats, Suggs still managed over 100 yards and 4 yards per carry. Suggs’ second touchdown run, a 25 yarder in the fourth quarter, was equally impressive—demonstrating the rookie possessed the stamina to carry the load for the Browns and maintain a dangerous burst after pounding the ball into an NFL defensive front.

Although the Bengals weren’t a top echelon unit, Suggs displayed a high level of skill on both touchdowns. In contrast, plays that fans typically saw from William Green were runs or screens bounced outside with a foot race to the end zone with an unsuspecting defense caught stacking the line. These are the same runs fans typically saw from Ahman Green and Jamal Lewis for that matter. The Gut Check isn’t taking anything away from these superstars or claiming they aren’t physical players. He’s just pointing out that the Brown’s rookie had to weave his way through a secondary to hit pay dirt on both occasions and this was particularly impressive with an offensive line far below the abilities of Green Bay and Baltimore.

Don’t think the Gut Check is anointing Suggs as the next superstar RB based on one game. But he is telling you that Suggs answered many of the doubts that dragged him down to round four when prior to the rotator cuff tear, he was considered at least a high second round pick. Think of it this way: Kevin Jones was a first round pick. He’s on team with a young QB and inexperienced (albeit very talented receivers). If you are banking on Kevin Jones to have a decent rookie year, then it stands to reason Suggs should have a much better season ahead of him.

In fact, Cleveland’s running game should get better regardless of the back. The line has gained another year of experience and added guard Kelvin Garmon from San Diego. Averaging 324 lbs, this is a big line with enough depth to improve from last year’s effort. Three-time pro bowl QB Jeff Garcia is a scrambler that can keep plays alive when the line breaks down. This gives the Browns the opportunity to be more unpredictable with their offensive schemes. The addition of Kellen Winslow will keep linebackers and safeties honest in the middle of the field and this will give the Browns a lot more room to run.

Nothing here guarantees the sole benefactor will be Suggs. But the changes to the Browns organization lend some credence to recent speculation that this was done so Butch Davis will have fewer chefs in the kitchen when making personnel decisions. The Gut Check believes the Browns waffled on their skill positions over the last couple of years and the management changes are in some way an admission that Butch Davis should have had more say with the talent. Coaches can deny this occurs all they want, but how else can one explain why Butch Davis passed up Clinton Portis for William Green?

The Gut Check knows Green was rated higher than Portis in media scouting circles, but if NFL GMs like to scoff at the media’s shallow knowledge of what’s scouted on a player then isn’t it safe to assume that Davis could have had a higher grade on Portis? Why wouldn’t he? Why would the Browns draft a player with a history of personal issues and pass up on a more explosive player their head coach recruited out of high school? Portis had no serious red flags so why would Davis choose Green ahead of him? It’s true Davis faced Green as a Big East coach and got a chance to study him, but you’ll never convince The Gut Check that Davis arrived at this decision alone—especially with the fallout that just occurred in the Browns’ organization. Especially when it’s known Portis made it know on draft day that he was going to make Davis regret the decision.

Regardless of the conspiracy theories, the answer will emerge in this summer in training camp. Although William Green will have something to prove, it’s mainly to himself. As admirable as that may be, it doesn’t generate the same type of motivation as being slighted. William Green had it handed to him and he didn’t appreciate it.That’s why the Gut Check is betting on Lee Suggs to take the job and not let go.

 
The writing was on the wall for me months ago. When Green had all his "issues," (and there were a ton of them), the Browns easily could have traded or released him. Yet they didn't. Why would they have kept him if they had no intention of using him? It would not make sound financial sense to keep him on the roster as a high priced backup.All reports from this year have Green being a model citizen, sticking with his rehab, and working extra in the weight room and working extra hours at the team's training facility.It's pretty simple, IMO, if Green stays straight and narrow, I think he gets the starting job.

 
The writing was on the wall for me months ago. When Green had all his "issues," (and there were a ton of them), the Browns easily could have traded or released him. Yet they didn't. Why would they have kept him if they had no intention of using him? It would not make sound financial sense to keep him on the roster as a high priced backup.All reports from this year have Green being a model citizen, sticking with his rehab, and working extra in the weight room and working extra hours at the team's training facility.It's pretty simple, IMO, if Green stays straight and narrow, I think he gets the starting job.
:D
 
From the 2002 edition of Fantasy Football Index (Green's rookie year):

There are legitimate concerns about Green. He's not much of a receiver or blocker. He doesn't have great moves. He ran a subpar 4.6 at the combine. And he was suspended twice in college. Heck, he didn't even start at Boston College prior to last year, instead splitting time with Cedric Washington, who wasn't even an NFL propsect.
Forgetting about all the "off the field" issues for a minute, I've come away underwhelmed watching Green run time and time again. He's got two major weaknesses that I haven't seen him overcome:1) He has terrible vision.

2) He isn't very elusive.

Is Green "more explosive" that Suggs? That's a debatable point. I would argue that in Suggs one full game, he looked quite explosive. But I would agree that Green is explosive as well. In fact, in the few games that Green has impressed, he has had some very long runs.

But being "explosive" doesn't compensate for Green's shortcomings. In fact it explains how Green can explode against Atlanta and then have a 25 carry for 30 yards game against the Steelers in the playoffs. He doesn't see the hole well. He doesn't have much wiggle. He's a back that needs a great offensive line in front of him. He would be a perfect fit in the Broncos system. However, with the Browns system and O-line he has problems. Too often Green has trouble finding the hole, and tries to power for yards, but can't get the job done.

If there's a back that Green reminds me of, its Greg Hill. A back drafted mid to late first round that could never live up to his billing. A back that looked great in practice every year but couldn't get it done on the field. A better athlete than a football player. "Just you wait Marcus Allen owners" we were all told by the "George Jefferson" dynasty owners of that time. "This is Greg Hill's year". But despite underwhelming year and year and out, Greg Hill dynasty owners knew that if he just had one more chance, he would become the constant top 10 back that they knew they were getting when they drafted him. I see a lot of similarties between Hill and William Green.

I'll tell you this, I wouldn't be surprised if Green is named the starting RB for the Browns. What would surprise me is if he keeps the job. I'll be shocked if Green plays well over the course of the season. I'd be shocked if Green could rack up a couple of 100 yard games. If Green finished in the top 10, I would be dumbfounded. Should this occur, I'll be the first in line to say that I was wrong about Green/Suggs. I'll annoit George Jefferson the Soothsayer he so clearly thinks he is.

But that's not the way I see it playing out. Whether Green or Suggs is named the starter, they'll both see carries. When Green starts to do what he's shown he can do so far, he'll see less carries. When Suggs starts to do what he's shown he can do, he'll start to receive more carries. By the end of the year, Suggs will be the primary back. In the offseason we'll be reading a feature story about a fresh start for William Green in Oakland or Tampa Bay. By this time, George Jefferson's last post will most likely be long forgotten and everyone on this board will be grateful.

 
I've come away underwhelmed watching Green run time and time again. He's got two major weaknesses that I haven't seen him overcome:1) He has terrible vision.2) He isn't very elusive.Is Green "more explosive" that Suggs? That's a debatable point.
I think the opinion of Scouts Inc. carries a tad more weight than your own. LOL.
 
I'll tell you this, I wouldn't be surprised if Green is named the starting RB for the Browns. What would surprise me is if he keeps the job. I'll be shocked if Green plays well over the course of the season. I'd be shocked if Green could rack up a couple of 100 yard games. If Green finished in the top 10, I would be dumbfounded.
I would be shocked if any RB on Clev was able to perform like this. This team simply can not run the football. Add that with Balt and Pitt 2 times a year who love taking away the run and I just don't see any RB on the Clev roster worth squat. Will I take a late round chance on one of them? Probably. I won't be expecting much though.
 
While I personally don't care one way or the other, if Green was "all that" how come we're even discussing his job being in jeopardy? To read all of these glowing reports would make you wonder why he has to take his job BACK from a guy who has only started 2 games?He has to keep trying to prove he doesn't suck. Unfortunately, his best arguments come at a time where every 3rd and 4th stringer is "having a great camp" and is "showing a lot of potential". Like others, I've been very underwhelmed at times while watching Green. Maybe it's the O-line, maybe it's the supporting cast. Other backs do just fine without those things, so maybe it's just the player.

 
I've come away underwhelmed watching Green run time and time again. He's got two major weaknesses that I haven't seen him overcome:1) He has terrible vision.2) He isn't very elusive.Is Green "more explosive" that Suggs? That's a debatable point.
I think the opinion of Scouts Inc. carries a tad more weight than your own. LOL.
Ah the old "someone that gets paid to write about football has an opinion different from yours, so their opinion is right, while your opinion is wrong."So from what I understand, every opinion that Scouts Inc has ever served up about a player's talent, who will beat out who in camp has been 100% accurate?I'm certainlly no NFL scout, but as I stated earlier, I've watched Green plenty and he has demonstrated neither the vision, nor the shiftiness to be successful.What part of the Scouts inc statement did I disagree with?- I said that its debatable that Green is more explosive that Suggs, but you could make that argument.- I said that Green may in fact win the starting job.What I disagreed with was the extrapolating that was done by posters in this thread.You want to talk about wrong opinions by posters on this board? How about the guy that posted that Chris Brown to get whacked by, Stephen Jackson or Kevin Jones? Now that poster had the wrong idea.
 
Forgetting about all the "off the field" issues for a minute, I've come away underwhelmed watching Green run time and time again. He's got two major weaknesses that I haven't seen him overcome:1) He has terrible vision.2) He isn't very elusive.
Nothing more to say, really, than that. I owned Green last year and have watched him run quite a bit the last twp years, and I agree wholeheartedly.I'll add:3) he can't break tackles. I can't count the number of times he was ankle tackled in the backfield with his team inside the five yard line.That Cleveland history of no 1000 yard seasons for its RBs runs strong, too. Any Cleveland runner is vastly overhyped since I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
 
I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
If any Cleveland (or any team for that matter) RB averages 20+ carries a game and doesn't get injured they will be a top 15 RB.You would really want a RBBC member over a guy who gets 320+ carries?
 
I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
If any Cleveland (or any team for that matter) RB averages 20+ carries a game and doesn't get injured they will be a top 15 RB.You would really want a RBBC member over a guy who gets 320+ carries?
I didn't say AVERAGED 20+ carries a game on the year.I said most week, the Cleveland runner that gets 20+ carries will be outscored (THAT WEEK) by quite a few backs we call members of committees.Reaosn being that the Cleveland runners face REALLY tough run defenses in 10 of their 16 games, the team has a history of poor running backs, and Garcia provides a rushing vulture presence - especially near the goalline.20 rushes for 65 yards and no TDs will be a common stat line for any Cleveland RB.
 
I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
If any Cleveland (or any team for that matter) RB averages 20+ carries a game and doesn't get injured they will be a top 15 RB.You would really want a RBBC member over a guy who gets 320+ carries?
I didn't say AVERAGED 20+ carries a game on the year.I said most week, the Cleveland runner that gets 20+ carries will be outscored (THAT WEEK) by quite a few backs we call members of committees.Reaosn being that the Cleveland runners face REALLY tough run defenses in 10 of their 16 games, the team has a history of poor running backs, and Garcia provides a rushing vulture presence - especially near the goalline.20 rushes for 65 yards and no TDs will be a common stat line for any Cleveland RB.
I hear ya.But if I knew before any given week that a RB (any RB in the NFL) was gonna get 20+ carries in a game I would take that over any member of a RBBC.
 
20 rushes for 65 yards and no TDs will be a common stat line for any Cleveland RB.
1040 yds for the season! Whoo-hoo! The curse is broken! ;)
Ha! Again, not an average - just a common stat line. I think as a team, the Browns will rush for around 1750 yards, but not a single Cleveland rusher will top 900 yards - and Garcia will get at least 350 of those rush yards, and at least 3 rushing TDs.I also believe the top Cleveland rusher will have a few 16 rush, 35 yard games.I actually would not be surprised if there was only 2, maybe 3, 100+ yard rush games from Cleveland runners, and if those 100+ yard rush games were matched by an equal number of sub-45 yard rush games. If that is the case, the same Cleveland rusher won't be the starter all year long, either.
 
I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
If any Cleveland (or any team for that matter) RB averages 20+ carries a game and doesn't get injured they will be a top 15 RB.You would really want a RBBC member over a guy who gets 320+ carries?
I didn't say AVERAGED 20+ carries a game on the year.I said most week, the Cleveland runner that gets 20+ carries will be outscored (THAT WEEK) by quite a few backs we call members of committees.Reaosn being that the Cleveland runners face REALLY tough run defenses in 10 of their 16 games, the team has a history of poor running backs, and Garcia provides a rushing vulture presence - especially near the goalline.20 rushes for 65 yards and no TDs will be a common stat line for any Cleveland RB.
I hear ya.But if I knew before any given week that a RB (any RB in the NFL) was gonna get 20+ carries in a game I would take that over any member of a RBBC.
You also know the back will get 65 yards and no TDs. Gamble on a committee memebr instead?
 
Cleveland Browns 2003 RBscarries and ypcOne of them doesn't look like the others. William Green 142 3.9 James Jackson 102 3.7 Lee Suggs 56 5.2 Jamel White 70 3.8 Hint: look at ypc

 
Cleveland Browns 2003 RBscarries and ypcOne of them doesn't look like the others. William Green 142 3.9 James Jackson 102 3.7 Lee Suggs 56 5.2 Jamel White 70 3.8 Hint: look at ypc
While I definitely like Suggs and think he has a good shot to get a lot playing time, you can't base things on 2 games, it is way to small of a sample.The ypc for Suggs don't mean much with only 2 games to base it on.
 
I believe whichever Cleveland RB is the "starter" and gets 20+ carries will still be outscored most weeks by RBs who are in "committees."
If any Cleveland (or any team for that matter) RB averages 20+ carries a game and doesn't get injured they will be a top 15 RB.You would really want a RBBC member over a guy who gets 320+ carries?
I didn't say AVERAGED 20+ carries a game on the year.I said most week, the Cleveland runner that gets 20+ carries will be outscored (THAT WEEK) by quite a few backs we call members of committees.Reaosn being that the Cleveland runners face REALLY tough run defenses in 10 of their 16 games, the team has a history of poor running backs, and Garcia provides a rushing vulture presence - especially near the goalline.20 rushes for 65 yards and no TDs will be a common stat line for any Cleveland RB.
I hear ya.But if I knew before any given week that a RB (any RB in the NFL) was gonna get 20+ carries in a game I would take that over any member of a RBBC.
You also know the back will get 65 yards and no TDs. Gamble on a committee memebr instead?
If I knew they would only get 65 yards and no TD's of course I'd gamble on a RBBC member, but a RB getting 20+ carries in a game is almost surely to get better numbers than that, I don't care who the RB is.But yes, if you look at the worst case scenerio for a RB getting 20+ carries, then I can see how it would be better to go with the RBBC member.
 
Cleveland Browns 2003 RBscarries and ypcOne of them doesn't look like the others. William Green 142 3.9 James Jackson 102 3.7 Lee Suggs 56 5.2 Jamel White 70 3.8 Hint: look at ypc
While I definitely like Suggs and think he has a good shot to get a lot playing time, you can't base things on 2 games, it is way to small of a sample.The ypc for Suggs don't mean much with only 2 games to base it on.
It just seems odd that the other 3, no matter the number of carries, were so similar.
 
I could EASILY see whichever Cleveland RB wins the starter job on any given week getting 20 carries and 65 yards with no TDs versus every one of these teams on Cleveland's schedule:Pittsburgh X2Baltimore X2@Miami@BuffaloNew England@ DallasThere's half of Cleveland's games. Also, I have as little confidence in any Cleveland back with 20 carries as I do in a committee back getting 16 when you consider this is Cleveland's EOY schedule:mad:Cin NE @Buf SD @Mia @Hou I'll take quite a few "committee" backs with only 16 carries (Staley, Garner, Bennett, for instance) over whichever Cleveland back might average 20 carries a game for that stretch - especially when you add in the NEXT point that Cleveland's "feature" backs don't get thrown to very often. Over that EOY stretch I cited, I could easily see a Cleveland back averaging 19-20 carries, and 60-65 yards per game, while getting no more then 2 or 3 rush TDs during the entire 6 game stretch - if that's what you want to count on during your FF playoffs over the other guys I mentioned, be my guest.

 
I could EASILY see whichever Cleveland RB wins the starter job on any given week getting 20 carries and 65 yards with no TDs versus every one of these teams on Cleveland's schedule:Pittsburgh X2Baltimore X2@Miami@BuffaloNew England@ DallasThere's half of Cleveland's games. Also, I have as little confidence in any Cleveland back with 20 carries as I do in a committee back getting 16 when you consider this is Cleveland's EOY schedule:mad:Cin NE @Buf SD @Mia @Hou I'll take quite a few "committee" backs with only 16 carries (Staley, Garner, Bennett, for instance) over whichever Cleveland back might average 20 carries a game for that stretch - especially when you add in the NEXT point that Cleveland's "feature" backs don't get thrown to very often. Over that EOY stretch I cited, I could easily see a Cleveland back averaging 19-20 carries, and 60-65 yards per game, while getting no more then 2 or 3 rush TDs during the entire 6 game stretch - if that's what you want to count on during your FF playoffs over the other guys I mentioned, be my guest.
Since I see Cleveland as a mess, I would also rather have Bennett, Garner, or Staley over any of their RB's as well. And even if there was a clear cut starter in Cleveland I would take Bennett over them anyway.But if Cleveland had a clear cut starter in a given week that was going to get 20+ carries I would feel very confident they would put up better than 65 yards and 0 TD's in the game, regardless of who they were playing. If a guy is getting 20 carries in a game it is usually because he is producing better than those numbers.While those garbage numbers are possible, they aren't likely for a 20+ carry game by any NFL RB.
 
I could EASILY see whichever Cleveland RB wins the starter job on any given week getting 20 carries and 65 yards with no TDs versus every one of these teams on Cleveland's schedule:Pittsburgh X2Baltimore X2@Miami@BuffaloNew England@ DallasThere's half of Cleveland's games. Also, I have as little confidence in any Cleveland back with 20 carries as I do in a committee back getting 16 when you consider this is Cleveland's EOY schedule:mad:Cin NE @Buf SD @Mia @Hou I'll take quite a few "committee" backs with only 16 carries (Staley, Garner, Bennett, for instance) over whichever Cleveland back might average 20 carries a game for that stretch - especially when you add in the NEXT point that Cleveland's "feature" backs don't get thrown to very often. Over that EOY stretch I cited, I could easily see a Cleveland back averaging 19-20 carries, and 60-65 yards per game, while getting no more then 2 or 3 rush TDs during the entire 6 game stretch - if that's what you want to count on during your FF playoffs over the other guys I mentioned, be my guest.
Since I see Cleveland as a mess, I would also rather have Bennett, Garner, or Staley over any of their RB's as well. And even if there was a clear cut starter in Cleveland I would take Bennett over them anyway.But if Cleveland had a clear cut starter in a given week that was going to get 20+ carries I would feel very confident they would put up better than 65 yards and 0 TD's in the game, regardless of who they were playing. If a guy is getting 20 carries in a game it is usually because he is producing better than those numbers.While those garbage numbers are possible, they aren't likely for a 20+ carry game by any NFL RB.
IMO, this is wrong - against teams like Baltimore, Miami, and NE, Cleveland will run the ball 20+ times even if they are averaging less than 3 yards a carry b/c they will be scared to fling the ball against those teams.The 'phins regularly ran Ricky more than 20 times a game regardless of how ineffective the run game was - Cleveland will be in a similar situation this year. I am not goign to arguye they will for sure run 20 times a game in those games I mentiopned, but it would be stupid to argue that they won't just b/c the team will beinfeffective against the run - better to run the ball and punt than risk an INT.
 
IMO, this is wrong - against teams like Baltimore, Miami, and NE, Cleveland will run the ball 20+ times even if they are averaging less than 3 yards a carry b/c they will be scared to fling the ball against those teams.
If they are averaging 3 yards a pop throughout that stretch I highly doubt that one of their RB's will be getting 20+ carries in those games. Maybe as a team, but not an individual RB.Do you think they will be competitive in those games? If you don't then there is no reason to expect them to have one of their RB's getting 20+ carries in the game. But if any individual RB on Cleveland averages 20 carries over that stretch it will be because CLE was competitive in those games and that the runner was being productive.So yes, if you told me Willie Green or Lee Suggs was gonna average over 20 carries a game during that stretch I would be very very happy to have them as my RB2 and I would expect decent production.
 
I'm not sure why we collectively are devoting this much time to the Browns' running game, but here are the stats from the last two years where they had a back with 20+ carries:2003GreenInd 21-86-0Pit 33-115-0Oak 26-145-1JacksonPit 25-94 -0SuggsBal 20-68-0Cin 26-186-2WhiteDen 20-55-0 2002GreenCin 25-96-0NO 28-114-1Car 24-94-0Jac 26-119-1Ind 22-69-1Bal 20-56-0Atl 27-178-2There certainly many weren't many times that it happened (14 times in 32 games), and the results weren't great but not truly horrid. Only 8 TD is a cause for concern.

 
I guess what I don't understand is, is it totally out of the question to assume that in the end, an RBBC might develop in Cleveland rather than Green or Suggs beating the other out for the starting role?Put another way, with all the talk about selecting a CLE RB over a committee member, what makes people so sure that a committee won't form in CLE this year?

 
I guess what I don't understand is, is it totally out of the question to assume that in the end, an RBBC might develop in Cleveland rather than Green or Suggs beating the other out for the starting role?Put another way, with all the talk about selecting a CLE RB over a committee member, what makes people so sure that a committee won't form in CLE this year?
IIRC Butch Davis stated authoritatively this offseason that he would pick a feature back and not go by committee.ILUVBEER99 - note the stats David pulled - whenever a back gets 20-ish for Cleveland, the yardage was low, when they got 24+ the yardage was high.And only versus Indie in 2002 was there a TD scored with less than 26 carries.
 
I've come away underwhelmed watching Green run time and time again. He's got two major weaknesses that I haven't seen him overcome:1) He has terrible vision.2) He isn't very elusive.Is Green "more explosive" that Suggs? That's a debatable point.
I think the opinion of Scouts Inc. carries a tad more weight than your own. LOL.
:rotflmao:
 
The writing was on the wall for me months ago. When Green had all his "issues," (and there were a ton of them), the Browns easily could have traded or released him. Yet they didn't. Why would they have kept him if they had no intention of using him? It would not make sound financial sense to keep him on the roster as a high priced backup.All reports from this year have Green being a model citizen, sticking with his rehab, and working extra in the weight room and working extra hours at the team's training facility.It's pretty simple, IMO, if Green stays straight and narrow, I think he gets the starting job.
Or maybe its a Kurt Warner situation, where you have the lower draftee playing at a higher level than the original starter, but you can't cut the original starter because A) You'd look like a fool for drafting the guy (William Green) in the first place, and B) You don't have yourself backed up against the cap (where the Browns are at the moment)
 
I think the opinion of Scouts Inc. carries a tad more weight than your own. LOL.
This guy posts a very well thought out post with some very valid points and this is what you come back with?Exactly what have you contributed to the thread except unwarranted derision? :no:
 
What? JohnnyU hasn't dropped by yet proclaiming Lee Suggs the greatest back since Jim Brown? :rolleyes:
I happen to agree with Johnny U about the CLE RB situation (which is a separate issue that I'm struggling to recover from) - for many of the same reasons that SJ posted - and I haven't, nor have I seen Johnny, make any comparison between Suggs & Brown. I have, however, seen you jump to this conclusion several times in the discussions about the CLE RBs when you are confronted with facts and have no intelligent retort.Understand something quite clearly, LB, there is a huge expanse of RB ability between Brown & a turd like Green. And Suggs fits somewhere in between these two. Saying that Suggs is better than Green in no way compares him to Brown, nor does it imply that. It simply says he is one of a large group of RBs in the NFL right now whom have a better skill set, more capability, and/or more potential than Green.
 
While head coach Butch Davis hasn't committed to William Green or Lee Suggs as his main running back for next season, The Associated Press recently suggested, "When he talks about Suggs, the subject matter is far brighter than about Green." Asked directly which man would start, Davis said, "Without trying to create a major controversy, [Green] still has a lot to prove. ... To the team, to me and everybody else." As for Suggs, Davis praised his attitude and work ethic before adding: "Then when he got a chance to be a running back, in the Cincinnati game, he did very well. In this league, you've got to do that about 100 games in a row." I strongly suspect Suggs' chances of reaching that objective are better than Green's.
link
 
While head coach Butch Davis hasn't committed to William Green or Lee Suggs as his main running back for next season, The Associated Press recently suggested, "When he talks about Suggs, the subject matter is far brighter than about Green." Asked directly which man would start, Davis said, "Without trying to create a major controversy, [Green] still has a lot to prove. ... To the team, to me and everybody else." As for Suggs, Davis praised his attitude and work ethic before adding: "Then when he got a chance to be a running back, in the Cincinnati game, he did very well. In this league, you've got to do that about 100 games in a row." I strongly suspect Suggs' chances of reaching that objective are better than Green's.
link
This may be linked and quoted from June 10th but these comments are from way back in March, I remember the exact quotes by Davis. Whoever wrote this piece of crap now needs to get some new material. Davis has said a lot of crap since this old quote.
 
While head coach Butch Davis hasn't committed to William Green or Lee Suggs as his main running back for next season, The Associated Press recently suggested, "When he talks about Suggs, the subject matter is far brighter than about Green." Asked directly which man would start, Davis said, "Without trying to create a major controversy, [Green] still has a lot to prove. ... To the team, to me and everybody else." As for Suggs, Davis praised his attitude and work ethic before adding: "Then when he got a chance to be a running back, in the Cincinnati game, he did very well. In this league, you've got to do that about 100 games in a row." I strongly suspect Suggs' chances of reaching that objective are better than Green's.
link
The bolded part of your quote is the writer's opinion which he tagged on to the end of Davis' words, not part of what Coach Davis said. Also, as has been pointed out, Butch Davis did that interview months ago. Since then William Green has been impressive. Teammates are noticing, coaches are noticing, and even outside scouting services are noticing, such as Scouts Inc. which many NFL teams hire to help do their scouting. The only people not noticing are Lee Suggs fantasy owners. It's called denial, get over it Suggs owners! :rotflmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hear that flushing sound? :confused: :GenM: I sure hear the sound, loud and clear. :lol: That turd you hear being flushed down the crappper is Lee Suggs fantasy value. :excited: Green is gonna be the man and Suggs is gonna stink. :HellToup: I'll be watching all the Suggs-man-lovers :cry: when Willie smokes him outta a job. :popcorn: Hopefully Suggs can have Christmas with his brother HANKY. :excited:

 
While head coach Butch Davis hasn't committed to William Green or Lee Suggs as his main running back for next season, The Associated Press recently suggested, "When he talks about Suggs, the subject matter is far brighter than about Green." Asked directly which man would start, Davis said, "Without trying to create a major controversy, [Green] still has a lot to prove. ... To the team, to me and everybody else." As for Suggs, Davis praised his attitude and work ethic before adding: "Then when he got a chance to be a running back, in the Cincinnati game, he did very well. In this league, you've got to do that about 100 games in a row." I strongly suspect Suggs' chances of reaching that objective are better than Green's.
link
The bolded part of your quote is the writer's opinion which he tagged on to the end of Davis' words, not part of what Coach Davis said. Also, as has been pointed out, Butch Davis did that interview months ago. Since then William Green has been impressive. Teammates are noticing, coaches are noticing, and even outside scouting services are noticing, such as Scouts Inc. which many NFL teams hire to help do their scouting. The only people not noticing are Lee Suggs fantasy owners. It's called denial, get over it Suggs owners! :rotflmao:
Why does what Scouts Inc say carry more weight than what this other writer said?Colin

 
It's called denial, get over it Suggs owners!  :rotflmao:
I'd say the same thing to all the William Green owners expecting good things.
"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" ??? How 2nd grade of you Kleck. :thumbdown:
lmfao!I am sincerely hoping that you are just yanking Kleck's chain and aren't seriously chastising him. Especially after this:

Hear that flushing sound? :confused: :GenM:

I sure hear the sound, loud and clear. :lol:

That turd you hear being flushed down the crappper is Lee Suggs fantasy value. :excited:

Green is gonna be the man and Suggs is gonna stink. :HellToup:

I'll be watching all the Suggs-man-lovers :cry: when Willie smokes him outta a job. :popcorn:

Hopefully Suggs can have Christmas with his brother HANKY. :excited:

 
It's called denial, get over it Suggs owners!  :rotflmao:
I'd say the same thing to all the William Green owners expecting good things.
"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" ??? How 2nd grade of you Kleck. :thumbdown:
lmfao!I am sincerely hoping that you are just yanking Kleck's chain and aren't seriously chastising him. Especially after this:

Hear that flushing sound? :confused: :GenM:

I sure hear the sound, loud and clear. :lol:

That turd you hear being flushed down the crappper is Lee Suggs fantasy value. :excited:

Green is gonna be the man and Suggs is gonna stink. :HellToup:

I'll be watching all the Suggs-man-lovers :cry: when Willie smokes him outta a job. :popcorn:

Hopefully Suggs can have Christmas with his brother HANKY. :excited:
Touche :brush:
 
The writing was on the wall for me months ago. When Green had all his "issues," (and there were a ton of them), the Browns easily could have traded or released him. Yet they didn't. Why would they have kept him if they had no intention of using him? It would not make sound financial sense to keep him on the roster as a high priced backup.All reports from this year have Green being a model citizen, sticking with his rehab, and working extra in the weight room and working extra hours at the team's training facility.It's pretty simple, IMO, if Green stays straight and narrow, I think he gets the starting job.
RIGHT ON BROTHA!!! :thumbup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top