This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
ooook, thanks.He's being sarcastic. Somebody made that part of their anti-Brown mantra in the pre-season. May have been LHUCKS himself.excuse me? I certainly don't feel like reading all those posts from several months ago (again), but why would you call Brown a "Cancer". I've not heard anything negative about his character.
Yes - LHUCKS claimed his buddy was buddies with Drew Bennett, who stated that the team would never play for Brown and that he was essentially a cancer in the locker room.Most of us said, whether the comment was true or fals, it was irrelevent to whether the team would play for Brown - he WAS the man, and the team was probably showing loyalty to George. LHUCKS used it as yet one more reason why Brown would fail this year.ooook, thanks.He's being sarcastic. Somebody made that part of their anti-Brown mantra in the pre-season. May have been LHUCKS himself.excuse me? I certainly don't feel like reading all those posts from several months ago (again), but why would you call Brown a "Cancer". I've not heard anything negative about his character.
On topic, Brown looked great. Its funny, because as a TItans fan, it kills me that he has so much trouble on 3rd and short or 4th and short. As a FF fan, and CB owner, I don't care about 3rd and short as long as he remains golden on 2nd and 8 from the 50.......TOUCHDOWN!!!!!COlin
Thanks for the clarification Marc.Yes - LHUCKS claimed his buddy was buddies with Drew Bennett, who stated that the team would never play for Brown and that he was essentially a cancer in the locker room.Most of us said, whether the comment was true or fals, it was irrelevent to whether the team would play for Brown - he WAS the man, and the team was probably showing loyalty to George. LHUCKS used it as yet one more reason why Brown would fail this year.ooook, thanks.He's being sarcastic. Somebody made that part of their anti-Brown mantra in the pre-season. May have been LHUCKS himself.excuse me? I certainly don't feel like reading all those posts from several months ago (again), but why would you call Brown a "Cancer". I've not heard anything negative about his character.
I think down the road - especially in snow or inclement weather - it might cause fumbling/injury problems (both issues that affected him when he was out here playing for the Buffalos)As far as ability, no. His upright style is what gives him the vision to bust those long runs. Don't forget, Eric Dickerson was an upright runner and he put together a few of the best fantasy seasons for a RB ever.
Eddie George is upright as well, but Brown seems more elusive then George. Also, Brown almost looks like a QB when he gets hit. He pretty much gives up on the run once there's serious contact. I can see that helping his health but he'll loose carries to some goalline back eventually.As a coach or as a FF player, I wouldn't have Brown change his running style. It's plenty effective.
Just keep in mind, LUCKS is only one naging injury away from being right about this. If, and I mean if, there is some sort of injury that limits his carries or if he flat out done for the season LUCKS is going to look right about this.So far his arguement don't look very good - but it's still early.I'm trying very hard not to enjoy this thread as much as I do.
Yup.I sheepishly follow those who say C-Pepp, Priest and Moss will help my football team, too.
Exactly. Predicting an RB will have an off year b/c of injury is NOT prognostication.
back at ya.(unfortunately, there is no smile face stumbling around banging into walls and tables b/c he is being BLIND, or I'd have used that one)
So, are you saying that a couple of years ago when Fred Taylor's preseason stock was slipping because of all those people who were afraid that he didn't have the ability to stay healthy was not prognosticating? A player's past injury history does and always will factor into a player's perceived value going forward. You might be right or you might be wrong, but player's potential statistics are always discounted when they have had injury problems in the past.
As far as I remember, LHUCKS, your back of comparison to Brown was Deshaun Foster, and all you could talk about was how Foster would have a tremendous year if and when Davis went down... Davis did (predictable, because of age and injury). But then Foster did too. Foster's injury, just like any injury that could, in the future, happen to LT, or Chris Brown, or ANY OTHER BACK, was unpredictable. And you will not suddenly become "right" if Brown is injured, any more than you are wrong about Foster because of his injury.
Oh do I agree with you!!!There will be times in the future when we need that one yard. Chris hasn't proven he can get it.As someone else said, he does seem to almost give-up after contact.In a related note, he is 6' 3" and 219. Same size as Andre Johnson!The only difference is Dre get's to beat up on Smurfy DBs and safeties while CBrown is battling massive LBs.Still glad I have both of them!
That is beside the point when you read how that "prediciton" was being used by LHUCKS.I would actually call it more "prognostication" to do as I did and draft Fred T three years ago thinking he would NOT be injured.Finally, while I might (but don't) concede that is is prognostication to predict a particular player will be injured for whatever reason, it is NOT prognostication to say "injuiry will reduce this player's fantasy value"Those are two completely different kinds of "prognostication."Here's one - if a first time RB runs for 100 yards in four of his first five games, he will have been a tremendous fantasy pick. Prognostication? Nope.
So, according to your rationale, Stephen Davis' injury was predictable because of his age and injury history. I get that. So, did you discount where you were willing to draft him because of that risk? If you did, isn't this similar to someone else discounting other players ( such as Chris Brown) because of similar risks? The only reason I mention this is that if you correctly pass on someone because you're afraid of his injury history and he gets injured, then I believe that you were correct in discounting this player. If Brown goes the entire season without getting significantly dinged up, then LHUCKS will admit that he was wrong about him I'm sure. I don't understand the debate here. LHUCKS will either be right or wrong about C. Brown but it's too early to tell at this point, imo. That said he is currently performing much better than I would have ever given Brown credit for so kudos to him.
I did the same thing. While all the chicken littles went screaming for the hills, I got Taylor for tremendous value because I believe that injuries can happen to anyone. Still, a lot of people will discount a player's production because of poor injury history, and I don't believe that it is totally illogical.
If LHUCKS' opinion were based entirely on potential injury, you might have a point.As it is,, I think you are jumping into the middle of this w/o a full panoply of what LHUCKS' position has been.
It is entitrely logical - though it is incredulous to me why Barlow continued to keep a high ranking while Faulk was falling due to injury concerns. Barlow's injury history, IMO, was significantly more troubling. Barlow missed a lot of time due to nagging injuries, Faulk missed time only ewhern his injuries were severe enough to nearly end his season.But that is all beside the point to THIS discussion.
That's beside the point. LHUCKS' main rtionale for discounting Chris Brown was that he wouldn't produce, not that he would get hurt. Since he's producing like crazy, LHUCKS is revising his argument, as he always does, to leave some out for him to be "right." Even if Chris Brown has a HOF career, LHUCKS will scream that he wa s"right" and the end, saying "See! He retired! What good is he now?? I told you!"LHUCKS Argument Progression------------------------------------1. Eddie George is the back and Chris Brown sucks2. Even if Eddie leaves, Chris won't get the job3. 50:1 odds that Eddie leaves4. Chris Brown doesn't deserve his 6.04 ADP5. Now that Eddie's gone, they'll get a different back to start6. Chris Brown won't hold off Antowain Smith7. Chris Brown doesn't deserve his 3.05 ADP8. Chris Brown won't succeed as their starter9. Chris Brown is a cancer to the team and will fail because of it10. Despite his early success, Chris Brown will get hurt....Later this season, I'm predicting it will be...11. Despite making the Pro Bowl, this will likely be Chris Brown's only good yearand so on
So you are saying that F.Taylor and Portis are now less of an injury risk than the likes of McAllister and Alexander.I mean after all, both Alex and McAllister have been hurt this year will Portis and Taylor have not. This would contradict o lot of what we had heard all off-season though.
Yeah, whatever. That's the beauty of an asinine opinion that's being hedged by nothing but pure luck. I mean seriously, God knows there aren't many NFL runningbacks who get injured.LHUCKS may eventually be proven right in your eyes, not mine. Everything he's said, beginning with the outrageous 50:1 odds of George remaining with the team and ending with the belittling of a legitimately studly college career via comparison to other RBs not named Chris Brown were a complete shot in the dark, and a crock. The only seemingly legitimate/supportable thing he's said in this entire 11-page thread is that he was personally unimpressed with first-hand witnessing of Brown running the ball. Yeah, I can see why. Nice talent evaluator on top of horrible guesser.Just keep in mind, LUCKS is only one naging injury away from being right about this. If, and I mean if, there is some sort of injury that limits his carries or if he flat out done for the season LUCKS is going to look right about this.So far his arguement don't look very good - but it's still early.I'm trying very hard not to enjoy this thread as much as I do.
Good point - I have always known LHUCKS to sack up when he is wrong - which is a heck of a lot different than the climbing into a hidey-hole philosophy I have seen from most others when their predictions turn out wrong.
Love the grand standing - will you put it in your sig when you LOSE, too?
Yep...My Omega team sucks. Also that is not a cheap shot at the staff. The purpose was only to point out that I have a proven track record. I obviously have a very high opinion of the FBG staff as well as Joe and David...that is why I'm here religously.
Whew - for a minute I thought you were actually calling ME a sheep.
I certainly put my money where my mouth is in this hobby and on these boards.
I've been watching C. Brown for a few games now. Most of the time when Chris Brown runs the ball on 3rd and short or 4th and short, he is tackled before he gets to the line of scrimage. This is in complete contrast to P. Holmes, whose never touched until he's 2 yards passed the line. It all about the blocking scheme. The coaches need to get Brown going north and south instead of east and west.I wish we could Pin this thread.
Good point - I think (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the Titans' OL scheme is a finesse scheme designed for Brown to make a cut in the line - not for him to power into his OL's backsides until he finds daylight.That is the best way to get 2 yards on 3rd and 1 - your OL push forward until the RB can plow into their backs and fall down having gotten the first down.The Titans' personnel along the line are designed to create pockets for McNair and to finesse their RB past the LOS, rather than power him there.Watch how often CBrown takes one cut while passing through the line and is then gone for a big gainer, versus how many times he is met at that same hole and dropped for no gain.The Titans' OL scheme counts on an upfield rush from the D-Linemen, and it gets foiled when folks stay at home and don't rush upfieldI've been watching C. Brown for a few games now. Most of the time when Chris Brown runs the ball on 3rd and short or 4th and short, he is tackled before he gets to the line of scrimage. This is in complete contrast to P. Holmes, whose never touched until he's 2 yards passed the line. It all about the blocking scheme. The coaches need to get Brown going north and south instead of east and west.I wish we could Pin this thread.
Was that ostentatious post by LHUCKS up above -- the one about how he's better than everybody else in the entire universe at FF -- what you were talking about?
:rotflmao:Was that ostentatious post by LHUCKS up above -- the one about how he's better than everybody else in the entire universe at FF -- what you were talking about?
Virtually all of the experts I have seen in this hobby have never had to write something like this. Their actions and results over a period of time speak for themselves.If you don't agree with my rankings, instead of picking out one player after five weeks that that has outperformed his LHUCKS' ranking...perhaps you should look at my rankings as a whole and come to the realization that I'm simply better than you at this hobby.Or perhaps you can follow the leagues in my sig and ask yourself why I'm undefeated against the FBG staff in addition to the many self-proclaimed experts on these boards in ff survivor leagues.
You could pretend you weren't doing badly and getting it all ###-backwards, and instead insist that we all focus on your brilliance. That strategy seems to have some legs.
(not directed at Radballs)
