Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
georg013

Isaiah Crowell

Recommended Posts

No one is passing Tate while he is healthy. He is just running too well to justify replacing him.

I am still not 100% that Crowell is locked into the #2RB role either. It's not like Crow has a squeaky clean reputation when it comes to character issues.

You mean the coaches aren't going to send him into the game next week when they otherwise would because they are still mulling over his college indiscretions?

Comeon, man. His college career means nothing anymore. All they care about is that he is showing up to work and producing against NFL competition when it counts.

Until he actually does something that gets him in trouble and makes him ineligible to be on the field, they are perfectly happy to use him up and ride the train as long as they can. They couldn't care less about his past on game day.

To look at it another way, what is the downside to running him until either his wheels come off or until he screws up and gets drummed out of the league? There is none. What downside has there been to the Vikings for relying on Peterson all those years prior to his trouble? Absolutely none. There's only downside to rolling them out onto the field RIGHT AFTER they mess up.

What? Of course they are going to send him into the game. Where did you get anything other than that? The point was that it is possible for Crowell to #### the bed off the field because of character concerns that many in this thread were pointing to not two months ago.

And it doesn't matter because I guarantee they aren't starting him in front of the veteran who is producing. The NFL seldom works that way.

When you post what I highlighted in red, it sounds like you are saying he isn't locked into the #2 because he wasn't a choir boy. You made an assertion, and the next line appears to be your proof for that assertion.

If that isn't what you were saying, fine. But you sure made it look as if that's what you were saying.

As for the vet versus rookie argument, if Crowell plays better than Tate, he absolutely will start over Tate. But there's more to playing RB than just running, so to say that Crowell is playing better than Tate may not be accurate. The total package that Tate brings could still bring more total value to the lineup than what Crowell does even though Crowell appears to be running better. But Tate's job security isn't because he's a veteran, it's because his all around game is more polished. There are plenty of veterans that ride the pine every week behind rookie and less experienced players. So it would be a mistake to attribute Tate's job security to his veteran status. Instead, it's due to his skill and talent.

But similar to your statement about Crowell's past, you state what could be a correct conclusion, but the reasoning you used to get there seems off or very imprecise.

If Crowell hasn't locked down the #2 spot, it has nothing to do with his off field concerns dating back to college.

And if Tate's lead back job is safe, it's because he's the better all around back, not simply because he's a veteran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you subscribers I recommend Waldmen's Gut Check article this week. It'll give more perspective on Crowell's fumbles, which I don't believe are a big deal at all.

Good read, definitely worth a look for those who can. It didnt' change my position any, but I wasn't too worried about them to begin with.

I'm thrilled that I picked Crowell up during the bye week when the Tate owner dropped him to get through byes/injuries.

And I thank the SP for making me aware. No way I'd get him after this week...I have $3/$1,000 FAAB remaining lol

Edited by Leonidas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might want to check how Foster did in 2010, and not as a rookie in 2009, because Tate was drafted in 2011.

To save you the effort in 2010 Foster ran the ball 327 times for 1,616 yards (4.9 ypa) and 16 TDs with 66 receptions for 604 yards (9.2 ypr) and 2 TDs.

this is wrong. tate was drafted in the 2nd round of 2010 and was in a camp battle with foster to be the lead rb. both players had their vocal supporters in the fantasy community. then tate broke his leg and missed the whole year, foster's adp rose drastically from the mid rounds to as high as the 2nd round.

Good posting. That was the big debate that offseason...the UDFA who showed well in limited action at the end of the previous year or the shiny new draft pick.

While it's true that Tate getting injured opened the door for Foster to show what he could do as a bellcow, if Tate ever showed that he was a superior RB to Foster, he'd have taken the job. But no ####s were given by Houston about which guy was drafted when or got paid what. They played the guy that played better.

The same will happen in Cleveland...the better RB will play more when healthy.

I readily concede that may remain Tate all season because Tate's all around skill set may remain superior to Crowell's all around skill set. But it's silly to say that Tate is running so well that he can't be taken off the field. He's playing better than Crowell, but Crowell is running better. It just isn't all about running, so Tate still holds the job currently.

But Crowell is a rookie. There's a learning curve. He's going to get better at his all around game as the season wears on and, like a 2 year old compared to 20 year old, the amount of improvement in the younger guy can be much more significant than in the older guy over the course of the season. So it isn't a guarantee that Tate's all around game will remain so far ahead of Crowell's that Tate is invulnerable. Depth charts are not written in ink at week 1 and locked down for the next 16. Guys give way during the season all the time to guys that are playing better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a fumbling issue is the fastest way to the bench for any player, not just Crowell.

That said, the people going hyper over ball security issues with Crowell either aren't subscribers or haven't read Waldman's Gut Check this week.

I hope I'm not going too far with subscriber content but I'll paraphrase what he said...Crowell indeed did flat out drop a pitch, which he subsequently picked up and ran for two yards, the second "dropped pitch" was a poor exchange most blamed on, and was in fact officially credited as a fumble by Hoyer (not Crowell), and the third was a true forced fumble caused when a defensive back delivered a pefect downhill hit that (in Waldman's opinion) would have caused 9 of 10 NFL running backs to lose the ball. Not every fumble is the result of butter fingers. Sometimes you have to credit the defensive player.

Now, Crowell may actually have fumbling issues that will reveal themselves in due time, but it's no doubt early to attach such a label to any RB under the circumstances. These incidents may in fact cause him to be more conscious of ball security issues and help in preventing future problems. We just don't know yet. He may also not be completely proficient in pass pro yet, and that may be a reason for a delay in him taking complete command of the starting gig and a majority of carries.

All three Cleveland backs have played well at times this season. Assuming all three stay healthy, we'll just have to wait and see what unfolds in the Browns backfield as far as a primary ball carrier goes. Hopefully one of them will, not only for the benefit of the folks that own the "winner" in fantasy, but for those that own the other two so they can move on to other backs that get more than single digit carries every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the people going hyper over ball security issues with Crowell either aren't subscribers or haven't read Waldman's Gut Check this week.

Waldman's gut check is a must read for me now. I'm sorry I didn't catch on sooner to it. Thank you for pointing this out. I was on the fence of offering a trade to the Crowell owner, but your reminding me of Waldman's always engaging writing helped convinced me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might want to check how Foster did in 2010, and not as a rookie in 2009, because Tate was drafted in 2011.

To save you the effort in 2010 Foster ran the ball 327 times for 1,616 yards (4.9 ypa) and 16 TDs with 66 receptions for 604 yards (9.2 ypr) and 2 TDs.

this is wrong. tate was drafted in the 2nd round of 2010 and was in a camp battle with foster to be the lead rb. both players had their vocal supporters in the fantasy community. then tate broke his leg and missed the whole year, foster's adp rose drastically from the mid rounds to as high as the 2nd round.

So you're saying Tate didn't lose out to an undrafted free agent. That works for me too.

iirc, foster had a slight lead on the job and a slightly higher adp but there were plenty of tate supporters who felt he would emerge with the job. most indications were that foster was ahead, but many ppl clung to their relative draft status and expected tate to eventually win out. theres a long thread on this board somewhere that has the blow by blow account.

I don't think Foster had a lead on the job. Tate got hurt in training camp, IIRC. With guys so young and unproven, I think the ADP was simply a "better horse" debate by the fantasy community rather than a bias in favor of an established starter.

Foster, despite being an UDFA, had some buzz as an under-rated sleeper because he had shown flashes while at Tennessee. His late season performance his rookie season reinforced that feeling. SEC fans definitely had him on their radar. But since Foster got his touches due to injuries in front of him rather than "earning them" (I think he was inactive most weeks prior to that) and there was a small sample size, plenty of people were still cautious about him.

So for many it was basically still an UDFA near-rookie versus a high round pick rookie. But Houston had already shown a willingness to play who was effective rather than someone who fit a traditional mold (sub 200# Steve Slaton). So it wasn't a given that Tate, the 2nd rounder, had much advantage with the front office. And Tate had quite a few detractors in the fantasy community who thought he was actually over-rated coming into the league.

It was a situation where no one really "knew" what was going to happen. But the Tate injury gave it clarity.

And despite how well Foster ended up playing that season after Tate went down, Tate still had some sneaky pick buzz the next season from people who thought he was the cream that would rise once he got over his injury...because if an UDFA could do that in that offense, oh what a 2nd rounder might do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaka, trade for Crowell so you have both.

It's a great backfield to lock up. This Ben Tate obsession won't end well for you.

:hifive:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless hype. The guy has two good games vs the same crappy team. It's still Tate's job...

Because 11 carries for 55 yards and a TD is not a good game and the BAL defense is crappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless hype. The guy has two good games vs the same crappy team. It's still Tate's job...

Because 11 carries for 55 yards and a TD is not a good game and the BAL defense is crappy

Keep starting him thinking he's better than Tate, like I give a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless hype. The guy has two good games vs the same crappy team. It's still Tate's job...

Because 11 carries for 55 yards and a TD is not a good game and the BAL defense is crappy

Keep starting him thinking he's better than Tate, like I give a crap.

You're right, Crowell's worthless. Please keep throwing Crowell back to the waiver wire, and convincing others to do the same.

I wish there were more people like you in my leagues :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless hype. The guy has two good games vs the same crappy team. It's still Tate's job...

Because 11 carries for 55 yards and a TD is not a good game and the BAL defense is crappy

Keep starting him thinking he's better than Tate, like I give a crap.

For now I'm benching Crowell for Tate.

However, I have to admit, he definately looks better than Tate to me. It happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaka, trade for Crowell so you have both.

It's a great backfield to lock up. This Ben Tate obsession won't end well for you.

:hifive:

I have Crowell. Would love to get Tate but the owner, wisely, won't sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tate is also a guy who has beaten out by an in drafted rookie FA once before in his career. As far as being hand picked, I agree they chose to sign him to a modest 2 year 6m deal with 2.5m guaranteed. They aren't married to him and with a two year deal probably didn't view him as a long term solution. In fact they appear to have been a bit iffy on him from the start because they used a third round pick on West and then jumped on Crowell quickly.

He isn't some entrenched star. He is a talented 4 year veteran who has missed games every season and never topped 1000 yards because of that. He's decent no doubt.

The Browns actions appear more to be in line with thinking he's a placeholder and veteran locker room presence more so than thinking he's a long term solution. Tate has shown what he is. Crowell has shown glimpses of what he might be. Nothing more nothing less.

:confused:

He is suggesting that Arian Foster "beat him out" even though Foster had clearly proven himself to be a top flight RB before they drafted Tate. He is technically correct if entirely flawed in the premise.

The Browns are married to Tate this season. That won't change simply by Crow having 5.3 ypc vs. 4.5 for Tate. And, if anything, fumbling 3 times in his last 9 touches puts his #2 RB status on the depth chart in question. There are very few things a coach despises more then putting the ball on the ground. They will gladly take a lower YPC and reliable ball skills over the flashy guy who can't hold onto the ball. This happens far more often then the reverse.

I don't know why people continue to ignore this reality multiple times every single season.

Nice revisionist history here.

Foster in 2009 played in 6 games with 1 starts. He amassed 54 carries, 257 yards, 3 touchdowns rushing, 8 catches, 93 yards receiving, no touchdowns - so fantasy point-wise he had accumulated about 61 points or 10.2 ppg.

Crowell in 2014 has played in 5 games with no starts. He has amassed 44 carries, 237 yards, 4 touchdowns rushing, 1 catch, 3 yards, no touchdowns - so fatnasy point-wise he has accumulated about 49 points or 9.8 ppg.

Crowell has no starts obviously. But his PPG is darn near exactly the same as when "Foster had clearly proven himself to be a top flight RB before they drafted Tate."

Personally I don't put a lot of weight into a player's first five games. It's certainly not enough to prove you are a top flight runner or not. But let's not act like Tate didn't get his hat handed to him by Foster. He did. And Crowell is very similar to Foster.

Might want to check how Foster did in 2010, and not as a rookie in 2009, because Tate was drafted in 2011.

To save you the effort in 2010 Foster ran the ball 327 times for 1,616 yards (4.9 ypa) and 16 TDs with 66 receptions for 604 yards (9.2 ypr) and 2 TDs.

Oof.

Wow man I owned my mistake about 10 posts back from yours but you're still unwilling to own yours? We've been posting here a long time man, I would think we would be beyond those kind of petty things at this point.

We were both wrong. Just like the fact that Tate is the unquestioned starter you should accept it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

I never said you said Crowell was the starter. What you said is that Tate got beaten out by an UDFA (Foster) when the reality is he got hurt before the competition was settled. Now it feels like you are try to fall back on the notion that Foster was "leading the competition" and not what you actually said.

Tate didn't simply lose out to an UDFA he was injured while, as it turns out, competing against one of the best RBs of the last five years. That's a lot different and doesn't feel like the precedent you tried to make it out to be.

You never seemed like the type to have a problem admitting admitting when you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worthless hype. The guy has two good games vs the same crappy team. It's still Tate's job...

Because 11 carries for 55 yards and a TD is not a good game and the BAL defense is crappy

Keep starting him thinking he's better than Tate, like I give a crap.

1. I haven't started him...yet

2. I never said nor implied he was "better" than Tate

3. You must not have many friends

Edited by Leonidas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

I never said you said Crowell was the starter. What you said is that Tate got beaten out by an UDFA (Foster) when the reality is he got hurt before the competition was settled. Now it feels like you are try to fall back on the notion that Foster was "leading the competition" and not what you actually said.

Tate didn't simply lose out to an UDFA he was injured while, as it turns out, competing against one of the best RBs of the last five years. That's a lot different and doesn't feel like the precedent you tried to make it out to be.

You never seemed like the type to have a problem admitting admitting when you are wrong.

When I'm wrong I don't have a problem admitting it. I'm here to learn and try to be flexible in my thinking. Tate was even with Foster for about 2 weeks total. After that, he was the clear backup. He's now the clear starter but this is the first time in his career that he's been a clear starter and he's already missed time. And when he missed that time, another UDFA has made his presence known. There is a pattern there, it's not apples to apples but still. You have to play if you want to keep your job. Especially in the NFL. Especially at RB. Especially when you have a talented backup.

Now maybe he's like Fred Taylor and becomes and iron man for the next two seasons but I doubt it. He's been hurt every year he's been in the league. If he goes down again, it might be just the opportunity Crowell needs to claim the job. But I agree, as long as Tate is playing well, I'd be shocked if he lost the job outright this year. We'll see but I think it's wise to hold onto Crowell for the fantasy playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Crowell owner. To think he will over take Tate without an injury is foolish. Tate is the starter as long as he is effective, and healthy. Tate has a history of injury, when and if that happens Crowell becomes a RB1 and top 10 RB in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up Crowell on waivers (was a little surprised to get him, since I was 10th on the wire)...and while I like the guy's skillset, I think there is a real chance he doesn't get the same type of play going forward because of the fumbling issues. I haven't seen anything to suggest this, but with as often as he's fumbled, you'd think the coaching staff will be careful to feed him a ton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

I never said you said Crowell was the starter. What you said is that Tate got beaten out by an UDFA (Foster) when the reality is he got hurt before the competition was settled. Now it feels like you are try to fall back on the notion that Foster was "leading the competition" and not what you actually said.

Tate didn't simply lose out to an UDFA he was injured while, as it turns out, competing against one of the best RBs of the last five years. That's a lot different and doesn't feel like the precedent you tried to make it out to be.

You never seemed like the type to have a problem admitting admitting when you are wrong.

When I'm wrong I don't have a problem admitting it. I'm here to learn and try to be flexible in my thinking. Tate was even with Foster for about 2 weeks total. After that, he was the clear backup. He's now the clear starter but this is the first time in his career that he's been a clear starter and he's already missed time. And when he missed that time, another UDFA has made his presence known. There is a pattern there, it's not apples to apples but still. You have to play if you want to keep your job. Especially in the NFL. Especially at RB. Especially when you have a talented backup.

Now maybe he's like Fred Taylor and becomes and iron man for the next two seasons but I doubt it. He's been hurt every year he's been in the league. If he goes down again, it might be just the opportunity Crowell needs to claim the job. But I agree, as long as Tate is playing well, I'd be shocked if he lost the job outright this year. We'll see but I think it's wise to hold onto Crowell for the fantasy playoffs.

Tate's injury history is absolutely a concern and you would have to call it a pattern, but the UDFA thing isn't even a coincidence because Tate still hasn't lost out to one ever in his career (he broke his ankle on his second carry of the first preseason game although to be fair Foster got the start in that game and he turned out to be a pretty okay RB).

I love Crowell if he is the starter in Cle, actually I really like any back that is starting in Cle because they have a great line and a mentality to feed the lead back, but unless/until Tate gets hurt again the most you can hope for from Crowell is 15 touches/game on a very good day but closer to 8 on a typical day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im planning to play Crowell this week...

Lets not forget "Start your Studs"

I cant believe seeing Crowell truly go off on my bn.

Personally, I have players rostered who if I waited for two good weeks in a row, I may not have enough Starters.

For me this fumbling sorta fits the Modus operandi

The Coach may have limited touch's to avoid the fumbles, which increased attention to detail..

Now I may not be wlling to send Crowell out from within my Own ten yardline..

But I know for fact who you would see the most from otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Crowell could run backward for 3 TDs against jax. Should be plenty of garbage time in this one as well as Cleveland has been playing, and what better way to use it than giving carries to your potential stud of the future while preserving your decently paid injury prone rb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I have been trying unsuccessfully to acquire Tate.

Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking of starting crowell over bradshaw or vereen this week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I have been trying unsuccessfully to acquire Tate.

Me too.

Tate owner wants Julio. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rolling out Crowell in my flex alongside Tate and Bradshaw at RB this week. Doing it over Holmes or McKinnon at flex.

Won't be an every week thing but I want to get the full piece of the Browns running game locked up in what is a good matchup. Combined they put on about 34 pts in my league last week, although I had Crowell on my bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

I hope you are right. My 5th round bust draft pick is now officially off my team for this guy. I'm on the Crow bandwagon with you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

What makes you say that?

Tate got three touches on the Browns' first two series (their only two of the first quarter). Crowell didn't get any. Tate - 3, Crowell - 0.

Crowell worked the third series of the game for the Browns getting two touches with a TD. Tate didn't get any. Tate - 3, Crowell - 2 (with GL touch).

Tate came back in for the fourth series of the game and got two touches before the Browns scored on a 51 yard bomb to Jordan Cameron. Crowell didn't get any. Tate - 5, Crowell - 2.

Crowell got the first four touches of the fifth series, fumbling and recovering it on the fourth touch with 5:46 left in the half. Tate then came in and got the next four touches for RBs on that drive and finished with an 8 yard TD run. Tate - 9, Crowell - 6.

Crowell didn't touch the ball again until 6:15 left in the third quarter. Tate had three touches over those two series. Hoyer fumbled on the pitch to Crowell on what would have been his second touch of that series. Tate - 12, Crowell - 7.

Tate then got the next 7 touches before scoring his second TD on the next series. Tate - 19, Crowell - 7.

Over the remainder of the game (the fourth quarter with a 31-3 lead), Tate got 6 more touches and Crowell got 4. He fumbled on his second touch of those four, losing it. Tate was used to run out the clock in the blowout win.

When was Crowell starting to take over the lead role? He never had more touches than Tate at any point in the game and Tate started the first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh, and ninth series before Crowell lost a fumble. Crowell started the third, fifth, and eighth series of the game before losing a fumble. That's a 6-3 series advantage for Tate to go with a 19-7 touch advantage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.

Edited by One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

What makes you say that?

... When was Crowell starting to take over the lead role? ...

It looks like it was a classic 2:1 split for Tate, admittedly, but there was this:

Tate came back in for the fourth series of the game and got two touches before the Browns scored on a 51 yard bomb to Jordan Cameron. Crowell didn't get any. Tate - 5, Crowell - 2.

Crowell got the first four touches of the fifth series, fumbling and recovering it on the fourth touch with 5:46 left in the half. Tate then came in and got the next four touches for RBs on that drive and finished with an 8 yard TD run. Tate - 9, Crowell - 6.

Seems to me that if Crowell hadn't fumbled and if he had done as well or better than Tate in doing his job on that drive, Crowell maybe ends up at a 10-5 carry split in his favor at that point and he also ends up with 2 TDs on the day. Maybe, considering we don't really know what happens hypothetically, but that certainly could have been the moment that Crowell could have taken over or at least earned a 50/50 share.

In the Miami game Moreno wasn't doing much at all, while Miller eventually was very effective, but Moreno was again getting the carries over the starter Miller, once inside the 5 yard line several times and then again he opened the 2nd half whereupon he got hurt when getting yet another RZ opportunity. Point is, who understand coaches and what they see but if they like a RB they will go with him.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

I never said you said Crowell was the starter. What you said is that Tate got beaten out by an UDFA (Foster) when the reality is he got hurt before the competition was settled. Now it feels like you are try to fall back on the notion that Foster was "leading the competition" and not what you actually said.

Tate didn't simply lose out to an UDFA he was injured while, as it turns out, competing against one of the best RBs of the last five years. That's a lot different and doesn't feel like the precedent you tried to make it out to be.

You never seemed like the type to have a problem admitting admitting when you are wrong.

When I'm wrong I don't have a problem admitting it. I'm here to learn and try to be flexible in my thinking. Tate was even with Foster for about 2 weeks total. After that, he was the clear backup. He's now the clear starter but this is the first time in his career that he's been a clear starter and he's already missed time. And when he missed that time, another UDFA has made his presence known. There is a pattern there, it's not apples to apples but still. You have to play if you want to keep your job. Especially in the NFL. Especially at RB. Especially when you have a talented backup.

Now maybe he's like Fred Taylor and becomes and iron man for the next two seasons but I doubt it. He's been hurt every year he's been in the league. If he goes down again, it might be just the opportunity Crowell needs to claim the job. But I agree, as long as Tate is playing well, I'd be shocked if he lost the job outright this year. We'll see but I think it's wise to hold onto Crowell for the fantasy playoffs.

Tate's injury history is absolutely a concern and you would have to call it a pattern, but the UDFA thing isn't even a coincidence because Tate still hasn't lost out to one ever in his career (he broke his ankle on his second carry of the first preseason game although to be fair Foster got the start in that game and he turned out to be a pretty okay RB).

I love Crowell if he is the starter in Cle, actually I really like any back that is starting in Cle because they have a great line and a mentality to feed the lead back, but unless/until Tate gets hurt again the most you can hope for from Crowell is 15 touches/game on a very good day but closer to 8 on a typical day.

Dude, Tate lost out to an UDFA every season he was in Houston other than his rookie season. Because every offseason he had the chance to prove he deserved to play over Foster, who was an UDFA, and never could. It's like you are implying that Foster was enshrined in Canton after his second season and Tate never had a chance to earn the job.

Does that mean much? Not really, because Foster wasn't your average UDFA, obviously. That is unless one tries to argue that a 2nd round talent can't give way to an UDFA on the depth chart.

I don't think people are saying that an UDFA is somehow Ben Tate's kryptonite. What they are saying is that Tate isn't all world and just because Cleveland paid Tate to come over from Houston and just because Crowell wasn't paid until after the drafting was done this spring, those things don't mean anything once the season starts and Cleveland wants to get wins.

Cleveland is paying the same game checks each week. And even if you bring performance escalators into the mix, they will be happy to pay them if it results in wins. So if Crowell starts bringing more to the table than Tate, Crowell will earn the starts. As for trying to divine whether or not he will do so, you just need to focus on what they are doing on the field. Trying to defend one's position with points about who got paid what or got acquired how mean nothing right now because both these guys are on the field and being evaluated and ranked by that staff based on nothing more than what they are doing on the field.

What we know is that where you were drafted means about as much as your college of field issues do once the pads go on and you start producing against NFL competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tate hate because people own Crowell is funny. Tate is good and he is showing it. Crowell is not the better back just because you own him guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pettine plays whoever deserves to play.

If crowell continues to perform and STOPS fumbling, he will get more and more carries. end of story

See Manziel if you need a slap of reality.

Edited by Soulfly3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

What makes you say that?

... When was Crowell starting to take over the lead role? ...

It looks like it was a classic 2:1 split for Tate, admittedly, but there was this:

Tate came back in for the fourth series of the game and got two touches before the Browns scored on a 51 yard bomb to Jordan Cameron. Crowell didn't get any. Tate - 5, Crowell - 2.

Crowell got the first four touches of the fifth series, fumbling and recovering it on the fourth touch with 5:46 left in the half. Tate then came in and got the next four touches for RBs on that drive and finished with an 8 yard TD run. Tate - 9, Crowell - 6.

Seems to me that if Crowell hadn't fumbled and if he had done as well or better than Tate in doing his job on that drive, Crowell maybe ends up at a 10-5 carry split in his favor at that point and he also ends up with 2 TDs on the day. Maybe, considering we don't really know what happens hypothetically, but that certainly could have been the moment that Crowell could have taken over or at least earned a 50/50 share.

It doesn't really matter what might have happened. Bottom line is that Crowell did #### the bed at the point and Tate went on for 25 touches to Crowell's 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said Crowell was the starter. I said he's got talent but I acknowledge that Tate is the starter and will be leaned on probably 2/1 over Crowell. What mistake did I make though? I guess I didn't acknowledge that Tate got hurt, is that what you mean? But Foster was leading the competition when the injury happened and Tate has been hurt a lot in his career. That is one of the reasons to like Crowell more than say James Starks or Kadeem Carey.

I never said you said Crowell was the starter. What you said is that Tate got beaten out by an UDFA (Foster) when the reality is he got hurt before the competition was settled. Now it feels like you are try to fall back on the notion that Foster was "leading the competition" and not what you actually said.

Tate didn't simply lose out to an UDFA he was injured while, as it turns out, competing against one of the best RBs of the last five years. That's a lot different and doesn't feel like the precedent you tried to make it out to be.

You never seemed like the type to have a problem admitting admitting when you are wrong.

When I'm wrong I don't have a problem admitting it. I'm here to learn and try to be flexible in my thinking. Tate was even with Foster for about 2 weeks total. After that, he was the clear backup. He's now the clear starter but this is the first time in his career that he's been a clear starter and he's already missed time. And when he missed that time, another UDFA has made his presence known. There is a pattern there, it's not apples to apples but still. You have to play if you want to keep your job. Especially in the NFL. Especially at RB. Especially when you have a talented backup.

Now maybe he's like Fred Taylor and becomes and iron man for the next two seasons but I doubt it. He's been hurt every year he's been in the league. If he goes down again, it might be just the opportunity Crowell needs to claim the job. But I agree, as long as Tate is playing well, I'd be shocked if he lost the job outright this year. We'll see but I think it's wise to hold onto Crowell for the fantasy playoffs.

Tate's injury history is absolutely a concern and you would have to call it a pattern, but the UDFA thing isn't even a coincidence because Tate still hasn't lost out to one ever in his career (he broke his ankle on his second carry of the first preseason game although to be fair Foster got the start in that game and he turned out to be a pretty okay RB).

I love Crowell if he is the starter in Cle, actually I really like any back that is starting in Cle because they have a great line and a mentality to feed the lead back, but unless/until Tate gets hurt again the most you can hope for from Crowell is 15 touches/game on a very good day but closer to 8 on a typical day.

Dude, Tate lost out to an UDFA every season he was in Houston other than his rookie season. Because every offseason he had the chance to prove he deserved to play over Foster, who was an UDFA, and never could. It's like you are implying that Foster was enshrined in Canton after his second season and Tate never had a chance to earn the job.

Does that mean much? Not really, because Foster wasn't your average UDFA, obviously. That is unless one tries to argue that a 2nd round talent can't give way to an UDFA on the depth chart.

I don't think people are saying that an UDFA is somehow Ben Tate's kryptonite. What they are saying is that Tate isn't all world and just because Cleveland paid Tate to come over from Houston and just because Crowell wasn't paid until after the drafting was done this spring, those things don't mean anything once the season starts and Cleveland wants to get wins.

Cleveland is paying the same game checks each week. And even if you bring performance escalators into the mix, they will be happy to pay them if it results in wins. So if Crowell starts bringing more to the table than Tate, Crowell will earn the starts. As for trying to divine whether or not he will do so, you just need to focus on what they are doing on the field. Trying to defend one's position with points about who got paid what or got acquired how mean nothing right now because both these guys are on the field and being evaluated and ranked by that staff based on nothing more than what they are doing on the field.

What we know is that where you were drafted means about as much as your college of field issues do once the pads go on and you start producing against NFL competition.

Or you can look at it as the fact that after his rookie year Tate lost out to the most productive RB in the NFL, and probably the best RB not named Adrian Peterson, every single year he wasn't in Houston. At a certain point draft position means #### all. That point occurred right around the time that Foster put up 1,800+ yards and 18 TDs. After that everyone else was playing for second place because you simply could not bench or demote Foster at that point. No way, no how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.

And the notion that the rookie with trouble holding onto the ball is going to supplant the veteran who is producing at a high level is even more hilarious. How many times does that happen? Someone pointed out ADP ousting Chester Taylor. Any other recent examples? Perhaps one not involving the best RB of our generation? I am sure it has happened and will happen again but I am betting that it happens far less frequently then the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tate hate because people own Crowell is funny. Tate is good and he is showing it. Crowell is not the better back just because you own him guys.

I am a Crowell owner. I just have no problem recognizing and acknowledging reality while not giving voice to my hopes as fact.

However to that end I am pretty confident that Tate will get dinged up again and Crowell will have another opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.

And the notion that the rookie with trouble holding onto the ball is going to supplant the veteran who is producing at a high level is even more hilarious. How many times does that happen? Someone pointed out ADP ousting Chester Taylor. Any other recent examples? Perhaps one not involving the best RB of our generation? I am sure it has happened and will happen again but I am betting that it happens far less frequently then the other way around.

How much trouble does Crowell have "holding" the ball, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GarionThorne-- Isaiah Crowell only has 44 carries, but has the 5th-most rushes of 15 yards or more. #Browns

Rushes of 15yds or more:

Crowell - 6 on 44 carries, 4TDs

Tate - 2 on 55 carries, 2TDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tate hate because people own Crowell is funny. Tate is good and he is showing it. Crowell is not the better back just because you own him guys.

I am a Crowell owner. I just have no problem recognizing and acknowledging reality while not giving voice to my hopes as fact.

However to that end I am pretty confident that Tate will get dinged up again and Crowell will have another opportunity.

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.

And the notion that the rookie with trouble holding onto the ball is going to supplant the veteran who is producing at a high level is even more hilarious. How many times does that happen? Someone pointed out ADP ousting Chester Taylor. Any other recent examples? Perhaps one not involving the best RB of our generation? I am sure it has happened and will happen again but I am betting that it happens far less frequently then the other way around.
Problem is, Tate's been a product of great zone blocking systems. He isn't special. Under what criteria are you basing Tate "producing at a high level" while Crowell isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did west die or something?. still a 3 headed rbbc. may need to sell crowell with this much hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that a year ago the Browns had just traded TRich and McGahee was the bell cow. Now they have three backs who are more effective than their 1st rounder from 2-1/2 years ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tate hate because people own Crowell is funny. Tate is good and he is showing it. Crowell is not the better back just because you own him guys.

I am a Crowell owner. I just have no problem recognizing and acknowledging reality while not giving voice to my hopes as fact.

However to that end I am pretty confident that Tate will get dinged up again and Crowell will have another opportunity.

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.
And the notion that the rookie with trouble holding onto the ball is going to supplant the veteran who is producing at a high level is even more hilarious. How many times does that happen? Someone pointed out ADP ousting Chester Taylor. Any other recent examples? Perhaps one not involving the best RB of our generation? I am sure it has happened and will happen again but I am betting that it happens far less frequently then the other way around.
Problem is, Tate's been a product of great zone blocking systems. He isn't special. Under what criteria are you basing Tate "producing at a high level" while Crowell isn't?

Where did he say Crowell wasn't producing at a high level?

The reality is that this is Tate's job until it isn't for whatever reason - injury, under-performance, he smells like #### or some other reason. But, the distribution of carries this season while Tate has been healthy have not given one iota of evidence or hope that he is not the #1 RB on the Browns and someone else is the #2 (presumably Crowell right now).

They Browns have fed Tate very well as long as he's been healthy. Until they don't, there's really not much discuss here. I do not know the Browns playbook and do not know what they are looking for on every play. I can only presume that, even if Crowell averages more yards per carry, as long as Tate is getting 60%+ of the touches, he's doing more things that the coaches want done on each play than Crowell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just grabbed him again for the third time. Keeping him this time as a Tate owner. Need to own the Cleveland backfield (who thought we'd be saying that in August).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tate hate because people own Crowell is funny. Tate is good and he is showing it. Crowell is not the better back just because you own him guys.

I am a Crowell owner. I just have no problem recognizing and acknowledging reality while not giving voice to my hopes as fact.

However to that end I am pretty confident that Tate will get dinged up again and Crowell will have another opportunity.

I can't believe how convinced people are that Crowell can't take over the lead role this year. I'm not convinced he will, but I can easily see it happening. I think it was starting to happen last weekend, before the fumblitis struck.

The notion that Tate is unbenchable is hilarious. There's nothing elite about him ...and he's brittle.
And the notion that the rookie with trouble holding onto the ball is going to supplant the veteran who is producing at a high level is even more hilarious. How many times does that happen? Someone pointed out ADP ousting Chester Taylor. Any other recent examples? Perhaps one not involving the best RB of our generation? I am sure it has happened and will happen again but I am betting that it happens far less frequently then the other way around.
Problem is, Tate's been a product of great zone blocking systems. He isn't special. Under what criteria are you basing Tate "producing at a high level" while Crowell isn't?

They can both be producing at a high level. Trouble is Tate is doing nothing that would cost him his job, other than running at 4.6 ypc. Sure Crowell is running at 5.2 ypc but he put the ball on the turf three times last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.