Joe Bryant...are you kidding? (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

If by great OL throughout his career, you mean horroific you would be right. Again if you think he is a "system" RB, or a product of his OL you are either:A) ignorant about the sport of footballB) trying to stir up the pot and fishingC) stupidThese are really the only options you have.

.... or, in cstu's case,D) being overly sarcastic in order to prove a point

LOL, he was so sarcastic I wasn't sure at first.

I figured it suited this thread. This is one of the more humorous SP threads I've read in awhile.

 

[Despyzer]

The reason the Chargers backups do so well is that they are very good backups.

How in the world did it take 150 posts for someone to draw this conclusion?

 

[TD Ryan]

Kansas City's scheme, also required very little from the RB. Compare Holmes and Lewis in Baltimore, then Holmes in KC. Baltimore didn't have a bad OL at all... KC didn't have a remarkably better OL either. But Holmes was a great RB for the running plays that KC uses, whereas his success in BAL was very limited. And don't get me wrong, I don't think Holmes was a scrub, but he was much much better in KC's scheme than he would have been elsewhere - to the degree that other teams would have looked for replacements, as BAL did.

indeed the "schemes" that helped him were the ones where he was a starting RB.Holmes showed signs of brilliance in BAL with plenty of long (20+) runs and a fantastic ypc, it's just that J Lewis was the starter racking up a 2000 yard season.

Emmitt was not a great RB, he was just tough.

 

[Gr00vus]

The Lions completely quit last week. My 95 year old grandfather could have run for 100 yards in a half against them. Using that game to draw conclusions about LaDainian's career based on what Sproles did is - inadvisable.

 

[Despyzer]

The Lions completely quit last week. My 95 year old grandfather could have run for 100 yards in a half against them.

He should be expecting a call from the Chiefs any minute now.

 

[redman]

The Lions completely quit last week. My 95 year old grandfather could have run for 100 yards in a half against them.

He should be expecting a call from the Chiefs any minute now.

I thought Larry Johnson was Grandmama.

 

[Jake22]

Every running back short of Barry Sanders is a system running back to some extent.

I'd add Earl Campbell and Gale Sayers to the list with Barry.

yeah...j.bettis running over people all those years, what a great system he had going...

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Every running back short of Barry Sanders is a system running back to some extent.

I agree with this 100 percent. I see comments about Emmitt being a system RB.....who isn't. Any RB should adapt to the system their team uses or they shouldn't be on the team.Marhsall Faulk, Priest HOlmes, LT2, all of them were products of their system, they just were apart of different types of systems and were used differently.

 

[cobalt_27]

This thread needs to be locked. FBGs should not be in the business of perpetuating this degree of stupidity in the Shark Pool by leaving threads like this open.

 

[Liquid Tension]

This thread needs to be locked. FBGs should not be in the business of perpetuating this degree of stupidity in the Shark Pool by leaving threads like this open.

Interesting post considering Joe was the one who fanned the flames on the LT2 is a system RB conversation.Joe has been mysteriously silent in this, it would be a lot better if he came out and stated what his opinion is.As for what a system back is i really don't care, but again I stated that I believe a system back is more about a specific offense that does a very good job at making good lanes for a RB and that most RB's would do very well in it. It appears that in the past anyone in Denver has been successful, anyone in Indy has been successful (Kenton Keith does not have talent but posted excellent numbers) and moving forward Minnesota's line is very strong. LT2 is a great RB and I believe it has been foolish to even fan any flames about him being a system RB (I surely wouldn't put my name to it)Peace

 

[cobalt_27]

This thread needs to be locked. FBGs should not be in the business of perpetuating this degree of stupidity in the Shark Pool by leaving threads like this open.

Interesting post considering Joe was the one who fanned the flames on the LT2 is a system RB conversation.Joe has been mysteriously silent in this, it would be a lot better if he came out and stated what his opinion is.As for what a system back is i really don't care, but again I stated that I believe a system back is more about a specific offense that does a very good job at making good lanes for a RB and that most RB's would do very well in it. It appears that in the past anyone in Denver has been successful, anyone in Indy has been successful (Kenton Keith does not have talent but posted excellent numbers) and moving forward Minnesota's line is very strong. LT2 is a great RB and I believe it has been foolish to even fan any flames about him being a system RB (I surely wouldn't put my name to it)Peace

I don't doubt that Joe considers LT a "great" RB, but he was merely noting the benefit LT has of being in a great system, which doesn't seem terribly controversial or outrageous a sentiment. One can be "great" and part of a great system that makes them even better (e.g., Emmitt Smith).It's the others here who are making all sorts of nonsense about LT and other RBs of the past. It's an amazing thread, actually. But, not so much in a good way.

 

[RavensUNFL]

I am in no way a "fan" of LT, as a life long Raiders fan, I hate him. However, he has had how many different coaches since becoming a Pro? Mike Riley, Marty, and now Turner, how does that make him a system back? You mean because he is good in every system he plays in? I agree if that is the case.

When you say "system back" I think any Denver RB, any Indy RB, hmmm to me thats about it, those systems have been in place for so long they have been proven to produce numbers no matter who is running the ball. I think the Keith comparison and at least 3-4 of the Denver backs over the years have all proven they can only strive in that system, that makes them a "system back".

 

[Gr00vus]

LaDainian's not a system back, not even close. He'd be great not matter what - he's already proved that in fact. People adapt their system to emphasize and make the most of LaDainian's abilities - as any good coaching staff creates/adjusts their system according to the talent they have.

End of silly discussion.

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

Do you really think if LTs top 3 linemen retired, Rivers goes down(not that he's great) and Volek comes in that LT is a stud. Don't kid yourselves.

In 2002, Tomlinson's starting O-linemen were named Ed Ellis, Damion Macintosh, Tonio Funoti, DeVaughn Parker, and Jason Ball. His QB was an old and washed-up Doug Flutie.The result? 1,683 yards at 4.5 per clip, He also caught 79 balls and totaled 15 TDs.The lineup really wasn't much different the next year when he rushed for 1,645 at 5.3 per carry. He also brought down 100 catches and had 17 total TDs.Your premise was proved to be nonsense years before you ever spouted it.

/thread

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that LT is anything short of a great back, or anything short of one of the best backs ever.

It is interesting though that ever since 2004 every backup RB in SD has looked like an all-pro themselves as well.

In 2004 Jesse Chatman averaged 6.0ypc as the primary backup.

In 2005 Michael Turner averaged 5.9ypc as the primary backup.

In 2006 Michael Turner averaged 6.3ypc as the primary backup.

In 2007 Michael Turner averaged 5.0ypc as the primary backup, and Sproles went for 4.9ypc in the game he saw significant time in.

Now, backup RB's ypc are always inflated. But even for backups those numbers are really high. It's highly unlikely that SD just happens to have had the 3 best backup RBs in the league the last 4 years, so obviously something good is going on there.

That said, LT was a stud even prior to 2004 when the backups sucked. As I said earlier, LT is more than likely a great RB that's gotten an ever so slight boost by playing in the system he has, whereas the real guy we should be talking about here in terms of system is Michael Turner, who everyone seems to think is a stone cold lock to be a great RB wherever he ends up.

 

[Despyzer]

It's highly unlikely that SD just happens to have had the 3 best backup RBs in the league the last 4 years, so obviously something good is going on there.

It might be unlikely, but consider that Chatman was dumped by the Chargers in favor of Michael Turner. Chatman is out of the league for a couple years and then puts up 4.1 YPC as a replacement starter for another team.

 

[redman]

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that LT is anything short of a great back, or anything short of one of the best backs ever.It is interesting though that ever since 2004 every backup RB in SD has looked like an all-pro themselves as well.In 2004 Jesse Chatman averaged 6.0ypc as the primary backup.In 2005 Michael Turner averaged 5.9ypc as the primary backup.In 2006 Michael Turner averaged 6.3ypc as the primary backup.In 2007 Michael Turner averaged 5.0ypc as the primary backup, and Sproles went for 4.9ypc in the game he saw significant time in.Now, backup RB's ypc are always inflated. But even for backups those numbers are really high. It's highly unlikely that SD just happens to have had the 3 best backup RBs in the league the last 4 years, so obviously something good is going on there.That said, LT was a stud even prior to 2004 when the backups sucked. As I said earlier, LT is more than likely a great RB that's gotten an ever so slight boost by playing in the system he has, whereas the real guy we should be talking about here in terms of system is Michael Turner, who everyone seems to think is a stone cold lock to be a great RB wherever he ends up.

Backup RB's tend to get carries during garbage time or in passing situations, which are notorious situations to allow for inflated rushing stats. Wonderful, Chatman ripped off some six yard runs on third and nine. Let's put him in the Hall of Fame!

 

[Liquid Tension]

This thread needs to be locked. FBGs should not be in the business of perpetuating this degree of stupidity in the Shark Pool by leaving threads like this open.

Interesting post considering Joe was the one who fanned the flames on the LT2 is a system RB conversation.Joe has been mysteriously silent in this, it would be a lot better if he came out and stated what his opinion is.As for what a system back is i really don't care, but again I stated that I believe a system back is more about a specific offense that does a very good job at making good lanes for a RB and that most RB's would do very well in it. It appears that in the past anyone in Denver has been successful, anyone in Indy has been successful (Kenton Keith does not have talent but posted excellent numbers) and moving forward Minnesota's line is very strong. LT2 is a great RB and I believe it has been foolish to even fan any flames about him being a system RB (I surely wouldn't put my name to it)Peace

I don't doubt that Joe considers LT a "great" RB, but he was merely noting the benefit LT has of being in a great system, which doesn't seem terribly controversial or outrageous a sentiment. One can be "great" and part of a great system that makes them even better (e.g., Emmitt Smith).It's the others here who are making all sorts of nonsense about LT and other RBs of the past. It's an amazing thread, actually. But, not so much in a good way.

Isn't part of being in a great system having great receivers or a great QB to take the pressure off of you? I mean Emmitt had Irvin and Aikman? LT2 has Gates and that is a big weapon, but the rest of the SD receiving corp isn't much. The OL on SD is not run blocking like they used to and this may be because Rivers can't keep the defense honest?I don't see SD having such a great system and personally think it is a silly comment to even suggest that LT2 is a product of this possible good system

 

[Liquid Tension]

I am in no way a "fan" of LT, as a life long Raiders fan, I hate him. However, he has had how many different coaches since becoming a Pro? Mike Riley, Marty, and now Turner, how does that make him a system back? You mean because he is good in every system he plays in? I agree if that is the case. When you say "system back" I think any Denver RB, any Indy RB, hmmm to me thats about it, those systems have been in place for so long they have been proven to produce numbers no matter who is running the ball. I think the Keith comparison and at least 3-4 of the Denver backs over the years have all proven they can only strive in that system, that makes them a "system back".