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

[switz]

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparentIMO Willie Parker is a system RBand Emmitt Smith

So by your logic, Adrian Peterson must be a system RB because he has the best O-Line year.

I'm pretty sure you don't get my logic, if that's what you think my reasoning was based upon.

Please explain your logic then.

There are talented RBs that will flourish in a multitude of schemes, fullback or not, one gap or not, power running or not....Then there are RBs who don't have the vision to see the cutback lanes opened in certain schemes, or don't have the leg drive to run in a power scheme, or don't have the wiggle to break the first tackle without a FB...When those RBs excel, it's due to the system, not the RB...For instance, Denver's scheme (with varying offensive linemen, and OL quality) requires very little of the RB, but to run where told... the blocking scheme even compensates for lower quality linemen, hence many RBs have had success there, but when they leave they do not excel. And they don't all go to teams with lower quality lines - for instance look at Ward and Jacobs verse Droughns.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.Emmitt was not a great RB, he was just tough. Put other RBs in that system, and they would have crushed Emmitt's numbers. Even among his contemporaries he was not the best RB (Barry and Thurman were better runners for instance).Here's a recent example of a "system" RB - Aaron Stecker. How many sweeps did they run? How many off tackle plays? They called ONLY the plays he was good at... which made him look better than he really is, as we all know from seeing him previous years.So no, it's not about just having a good line, it's about playing in a system where the running plays "fit" the type of runner you are, versus being a runner that will excel on any type of running play...

 

[QuizGuy66]

LT2 Sux0r



Maybe Joe's just trying to trade for him in his league

-QG

 

[redman]

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparentIMO Willie Parker is a system RBand Emmitt Smith

So by your logic, Adrian Peterson must be a system RB because he has the best O-Line year.

I'm pretty sure you don't get my logic, if that's what you think my reasoning was based upon.

Please explain your logic then.

There are talented RBs that will flourish in a multitude of schemes, fullback or not, one gap or not, power running or not....Then there are RBs who don't have the vision to see the cutback lanes opened in certain schemes, or don't have the leg drive to run in a power scheme, or don't have the wiggle to break the first tackle without a FB...When those RBs excel, it's due to the system, not the RB...For instance, Denver's scheme (with varying offensive linemen, and OL quality) requires very little of the RB, but to run where told... the blocking scheme even compensates for lower quality linemen, hence many RBs have had success there, but when they leave they do not excel. And they don't all go to teams with lower quality lines - for instance look at Ward and Jacobs verse Droughns.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.Emmitt was not a great RB, he was just tough. Put other RBs in that system, and they would have crushed Emmitt's numbers. Even among his contemporaries he was not the best RB (Barry and Thurman were better runners for instance).Here's a recent example of a "system" RB - Aaron Stecker. How many sweeps did they run? How many off tackle plays? They called ONLY the plays he was good at... which made him look better than he really is, as we all know from seeing him previous years.So no, it's not about just having a good line, it's about playing in a system where the running plays "fit" the type of runner you are, versus being a runner that will excel on any type of running play...

Another Portis-Betts example. Betts has nowhere near Portis' vision. Betts therefore needs to have a system where he knows where his hole is, and he hits it hard and fast. In that system, he looks fast, strong and decisive. With Portis out for the year last year, they adapted the system to Betts' strengths (the o-line also gelled, and Campbell also opened up the offense) and Betts shined. People even began to say that Betts was better than Portis (or, ironically enough, better suited to Saunders' scheme than Portis) because he looked more decisive. Portis' vision, however, affords the team the luxury of zone blocking and allowing him to read and choose a cut-back lane for himself. This sometimes makes him look hesitant compared to Betts' running style, but it's deceptive. With Portis back this year, they're back to more zone blocking and Betts once again looks inferior to Portis. Is one a "system back" versus the other? I don't know, but I do know which of the two has more skills and is better and more adaptable than the other.

 

[Genester]

Then there are RBs who don't have the vision to see the cutback lanes opened in certain schemes, or don't have the leg drive to run in a power scheme, or don't have the wiggle to break the first tackle without a FB...When those RBs excel, it's due to the system, not the RB...For instance, Denver's scheme (with varying offensive linemen, and OL quality) requires very little of the RB, but to run where told...

I think this is as good a description as any I've seen. A system is clearly some combination of coaches, players, and strategy to maximize the production regardless of which specific RB body you plug in. By definition, many average NFL RBs ought to succeed in a scenario like that one.Denver is a prime example of this - take a look at Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Travis Henry, Selvin Young, Andre Hall, etc etc. It clearly didn't matter who you had in there to an extent - the scheme, solid OL, altitude, etc. drove the results. Sure, some guys did better than others - TD was clearly >>>>> Gary. However, I would suggest the telltale sign of a system is how the same RB who has a decent amount of success fails to produce outside of "the system". See the same stable of RBs as above for examples, minus Henry, of course.I think KC is a good example, even when the line is in shambles. The fact Kolby Smith is rushing for decent numbers is due primarily to the number of carries he's getting and the running scheme KC is executing. That's a system RB - if we took Kolby to, say, Arizona, would he be getting the same numbers? Likely not.Now, from time to time, a great player plays in a great system, and that's when great results happen. Surely Emmitt and Thurman Thomas and Priest were examples of this. There's nothing wrong with having both. I believe LT is more of an individually brilliant athlete than a system guy. If SD thinks he is, they ought to trade him for the crown jewels and start Turner or Sproles. Don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[The Rook]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

Denver Running BacksJoseph Addai ??? Indy proved Edge needed them more than they needed Edge

Steven Jackson ??? The system started falling apart and so did he (referring to his poor performance before the injury.....although he's finishing strong which provides argument against)

Kansas City Running Backs (maybe this is faltering)

 

[Ryan_21]

I agree with Joe on this one. Stick LT in Chicago and let's see what he can do.

Hahahah I would put this quote as my sig if I was a huge tool.

 

[ShadowMaster]

I love the random shots and really like Joe's take on a lot of items. It is understood that nobody will see eye to eye on every issue, but this quote in random shots is absurd...

"Like everyone else, I love LaDainian Tomlinson. But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday. Tomlinson sat out the 2nd half with the Chargers holding a big lead. Michael Turner left with an injury and Darren Sproles looked like Jim Brown back there with 122 yards and two touchdowns."

System RB If by that you mean a guy who can do EVERYTHING at an extremely high level, then I am with you, but if you are using system running back in the traditional and most likely sense, then I call

Maybe you were just

Edited to add that maybe irresponsible was too strong, but I don't think it should have been written.

I'm not going to read the whole thread to find out if someone else already told he dumb ### OP that Random Shots is a humor/fluff column. Joe only puts that disclaimer at the top of each week's work..................Irresponsible? Get a F'in clue

 

[FUBAR]

I love the random shots and really like Joe's take on a lot of items. It is understood that nobody will see eye to eye on every issue, but this quote in random shots is absurd...

"Like everyone else, I love LaDainian Tomlinson. But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday. Tomlinson sat out the 2nd half with the Chargers holding a big lead. Michael Turner left with an injury and Darren Sproles looked like Jim Brown back there with 122 yards and two touchdowns."

System RB If by that you mean a guy who can do EVERYTHING at an extremely high level, then I am with you, but if you are using system running back in the traditional and most likely sense, then I call

Maybe you were just

Edited to add that maybe irresponsible was too strong, but I don't think it should have been written.

I'm not going to read the whole thread to find out if someone else already told he dumb ### OP that Random Shots is a humor/fluff column. Joe only puts that disclaimer at the top of each week's work..................Irresponsible? Get a F'in clue

 

[Liquid Tension]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

I think guys like Droughns, and Tatum Bell were system RB's in Denver. I think right now you could say someone like Ron Dayne is. Now the term system may also be a great situation such as anyone running in Indy (Kenton Keith did great and he is not a very good RB - and he is on my team) does well and Minnesota's awesome line makes Taylor look great. You have so far thrown stones but offered nothing about LT2's ability. Are you saying he is just behind a great line or has such a good QB and receiving threats that nobody focus' on him?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm guessing Joe's comments were a ploy to increase his website traffic to make more coin in advertising.

Or to light a fire on Tatum BellThe ultimate system RB

 

[Liquid Tension]

He makes a valid point.

Sure, who doesn't use the Detroit Lions rushing defense as a benchmark for running back/running game excellence?

He is saying that last week's game did not quell the rumors that had begun previous to that game. So the benchmark was apparently set earlier. I am not saying I agree with it, but it is a valid argument. I do not agree with half the things said on this board, but it does not mean they are irresponsible. They are simply opinions, and everyone has one.

And what is valid about it? LT has great accelleration, balance, cutting ability, vision, agility, hands and runs with very good pad level for solid power for a guy with everything else. He also can block very well. What system is this NOT valuable in?

Let me start off by saying I do not think LT is a "system" RB. I think the argument J is trying to make is that LT would not be as successful in another system. The point used is that Turner and Sproles have been able to come in and put up very impressive stats. Although I do not agree with this assessment, as system determines to some extent the success of all RBs, it is a valid argument to discuss if people feel that way. And in this thread there has been some quality debunking of this theory.

Sproles had done nothing until this last week against a poor opponent. The reason why Turner is getting the hype is not just because if the stats he has put up, but because he has some serious talent. He is not in LT2's league though. When turner is in the game teams are not as focused to stop him as they are with LT2. Also, when a guy is fresh he has a little more juice in him. I absolutely agree that all players do better with more talent around them. That is obvious, but to call LT2 a system back is seriously flawed.

 

[BoltBacker]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...

Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparent

IMO Willie Parker is a system RB

and Emmitt Smith

As long as the "SYSTEM" has a great O-line, then i agree with all of the above. Like someone said earlier, Ronnie Brown is the purest example of this, if there are actual holes, a good pro will cruise through them and go off at a 5.0 YPC Clip.

If there is no room, he will bang into opponennts and go for 3.0 to 4.0 YPC when lucky.

But you are qualifying it already.. wherein there are some systems, even crappy RBs look really good (i.e. Droughns in DEN, verse everywhere else). When that RB excels it's due to the system, NOT the RB.

Call it the "system" in MINN, SD, KC until the cows come home, but a "system" is only as good as parts -- the o-line.

SD has had a good OL throughout his career in SD? News to me. Last season was the first year I've ever seen them play above average and I've watched them since the late stages of Fouts career. They certainly haven't played above average this season to be sure.

 

[switz]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...

Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparent

IMO Willie Parker is a system RB

and Emmitt Smith

As long as the "SYSTEM" has a great O-line, then i agree with all of the above. Like someone said earlier, Ronnie Brown is the purest example of this, if there are actual holes, a good pro will cruise through them and go off at a 5.0 YPC Clip.

If there is no room, he will bang into opponennts and go for 3.0 to 4.0 YPC when lucky.

But you are qualifying it already.. wherein there are some systems, even crappy RBs look really good (i.e. Droughns in DEN, verse everywhere else). When that RB excels it's due to the system, NOT the RB.

Call it the "system" in MINN, SD, KC until the cows come home, but a "system" is only as good as parts -- the o-line.

you're oversimplifying it.

 

[428143]

Lets just say he is in a system that is conducive to a good running game...it's not a shot at LT, it's simply the truth. The Chargers can run the ball with the best of them, and the OL/coaches/etc deserve some credit as well. With that being said, of course LT is an elite RB, and would put up decent stats in any system...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

There is no doubt that LT is one of the greatest RBs of our time.

That said, last year when everyone was talking about how Michael Turner was easily the best backup RB in the league it did get me thinking as to how likely it was that the same team ACTUALLY had the best RB in the league and the best backup RB in the league.

I think Turner is the guy we should be more suspicious about here though...

 

[Liquid Tension]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

 

[Liquid Tension]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...

Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparent

IMO Willie Parker is a system RB

and Emmitt Smith

So by your logic, Adrian Peterson must be a system RB because he has the best O-Line year.

The Minnesota line absolutely helps Peterson and Taylor look good. However, until their QB can keep 8+ off the box that part hurts them. Overall, the OL helps make them look better than they are though (and I do agree Peterson has looked great)

 

[talbott]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

I truthfully can't even believe this thread is happening. I might as well start the "Randy Moss is a system WR" thread. Good lord.

 

[thayman]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

I have to agree. I've always been very happy with all the content here, the random shots always gives me a chuckle and a smile or two. But this is nothing short of stupid, I expect some fishing from time to time, but not from the Staff/Mods/Owners. I don't care what Sproles did against the Lions last week, I care what Tomlinson did at the start of his career behind a garbage o-line in San Diego. Am I to now assume that research and memory are down at FBGs???

 

[AussieOyOyOy]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

I have to agree. I've always been very happy with all the content here, the random shots always gives me a chuckle and a smile or two. But this is nothing short of stupid, I expect some fishing from time to time, but not from the Staff/Mods/Owners. I don't care what Sproles did against the Lions last week, I care what Tomlinson did at the start of his career behind a garbage o-line in San Diego. Am I to now assume that research and memory are down at FBGs???

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

 

[Ghost Rider]

No way is Tomlinson a better receiver than Faulk was. Most of the passes Tomlinson catches are screens or within a few yards of the line of scrimmage. Faulk ran routs like a WR and could get open downfield and such. You never see Tomlinson do stuff like that. That is not a knock on Tomlinson; it is a testament to how awesome Faulk was.

 

[Despyzer]

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

Wow... way to conveniently leave out the 4.5 and the 5.3 in between those two. Nice job.

 

[eom]

No way is Tomlinson a better receiver than Faulk was. Most of the passes Tomlinson catches are screens or within a few yards of the line of scrimmage. Faulk ran routs like a WR and could get open downfield and such. You never see Tomlinson do stuff like that. That is not a knock on Tomlinson; it is a testament to how awesome Faulk was.

kevin faulk is just as awesome now as he always has been.

 

[Ghost Rider]

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

Wow... way to conveniently leave out the 4.5 and the 5.3 in between those two. Nice job.

I think some are forgetting how awful SD's offensive line used to be, and how Tomlinson still produced despite having almost no help on offense.

 

[BelichicksRevenge]

Walter Payton was system running back. Look what neil anderson did after Walter retired.

 

[cstu]

Joe's actually right. LT, while a really good RB, isn't even a Top 10 of all-time RB, but has been treated as such in the last 3 or 4 years. Go put him in Arizona, Chicago or Detroit and lets see how he peforms. A Top 10'er like Barry Sanders would do fine regardless. LT wouldn't.

I see a lot of people missed LT's first few years in SD.

 

[cstu]

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

Wow... way to conveniently leave out the 4.5 and the 5.3 in between those two. Nice job.

I think some are forgetting how awful SD's offensive line used to be, and how Tomlinson still produced despite having almost no help on offense.

Yes, where was this "system" pre-2001?

 

[froafro]

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.

just so you know...it was Drew Brees who started every game in 02 and he wasn't bad at all with 3284 yds passing and 17tds in his first year as a starter.

 

[Despyzer]

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.

just so you know...it was Drew Brees who started every game in 02 and he wasn't bad at all with 3284 yds passing and 17tds in his first year as a starter.

True enough. Brees was the starter, but he was bad enough that the franchise thought spending a top 5 pick on a quarterback immediately following these two years that I mentioned was a pretty good idea.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think we should test this theory by having SD trade LT to us next year for SA.

That idea is even better than a program to download porn a million times faster.Almost.

 

[thayman]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

I have to agree. I've always been very happy with all the content here, the random shots always gives me a chuckle and a smile or two. But this is nothing short of stupid, I expect some fishing from time to time, but not from the Staff/Mods/Owners. I don't care what Sproles did against the Lions last week, I care what Tomlinson did at the start of his career behind a garbage o-line in San Diego. Am I to now assume that research and memory are down at FBGs???

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

The be all end all stat is the fact that he has never had less then 10 TDs in a year, and that was his rookie year. Since then he has never had less then 15 TDs in a year. I care that his worst year is over 1,600 total yards. I care that for a few years he wasn't the focal point in the offense, he was the offense.Anyone that is arguing that Tomlinson is just a "system" guy you are either ignorant about the sport of football, trying to stir up the pot, or just plain stupid.

 

[cstu]

3.6 ypc as a rookie. 3.9 ypc in his 4th year. That's the end-all, be-all stat for a RB, right?

Wow... way to conveniently leave out the 4.5 and the 5.3 in between those two. Nice job.

I'm sorry Despyzer, but playing injured with a torn groin for half the season is no excuse for a 3.9 YPC.

 

[notapplicable]

Ha, I really think that this thread is funny because of the fact that people actually think that LT2 is a "system runningback" and that he's not a top 10 back of all time. The guy was on some horrid teams, but has ALWAYS put up top #'s and is as durable as they come.

He's only missed 1 game in his entire 7 year career. And is carrying a 4.5 YPC avg.

"system runningback"

BA HA HA

 

[cstu]

Ha, I really think that this thread is funny because of the fact that people actually think that LT2 is a "system runningback" and that he's not a top 10 back of all time. The guy was on some horrid teams, but has ALWAYS put up top #'s and is as durable as they come. He's only missed 1 game in his entire 7 year career. And is carrying a 4.5 YPC avg."system runningback"BA HA HA

He's only 5th in YPC for RB's with over 2000 carries - not good for a RB lucky enough to had such a great OL throughout his career.

1 Barry Sanders rb 1989--1998 153 3062 15269 4.99 99 352 2921 8.30 10 2473.002 Tiki Barber rb 1997--2006 154 2216 10448 4.71 55 586 5183 8.84 12 1965.103 O.J. Simpson rb 1969--1979 135 2404 11236 4.67 61 203 2142 10.55 14 1787.804 Fred Taylor rb 1998--2007 126 2278 10604 4.65 60 270 2263 8.38 8 1694.705 LaDainian Tomlinson rb 2001--2007 109 2330 10487 4.50 114 455 3361 7.39 13 2181.95

 

[eom]

joe bryant, you are ree-diculous!!

 

[thayman]

Ha, I really think that this thread is funny because of the fact that people actually think that LT2 is a "system runningback" and that he's not a top 10 back of all time. The guy was on some horrid teams, but has ALWAYS put up top #'s and is as durable as they come. He's only missed 1 game in his entire 7 year career. And is carrying a 4.5 YPC avg."system runningback"BA HA HA

He's only 5th in YPC for RB's with over 2000 carries - not good for a RB lucky enough to had such a great OL throughout his career.

1 Barry Sanders rb 1989--1998 153 3062 15269 4.99 99 352 2921 8.30 10 2473.002 Tiki Barber rb 1997--2006 154 2216 10448 4.71 55 586 5183 8.84 12 1965.103 O.J. Simpson rb 1969--1979 135 2404 11236 4.67 61 203 2142 10.55 14 1787.804 Fred Taylor rb 1998--2007 126 2278 10604 4.65 60 270 2263 8.38 8 1694.705 LaDainian Tomlinson rb 2001--2007 109 2330 10487 4.50 114 455 3361 7.39 13 2181.95

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.

 

[Despyzer]

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

 

[talbott]

can we please lock this thread and pretend JB's comment never happened? TIA

 

[redman]

I just wanted to slide in a at the "Irresponsible!" subtitle.

 

[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

 

[Liquid Tension]

I love the random shots and really like Joe's take on a lot of items. It is understood that nobody will see eye to eye on every issue, but this quote in random shots is absurd...

"Like everyone else, I love LaDainian Tomlinson. But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday. Tomlinson sat out the 2nd half with the Chargers holding a big lead. Michael Turner left with an injury and Darren Sproles looked like Jim Brown back there with 122 yards and two touchdowns."

System RB If by that you mean a guy who can do EVERYTHING at an extremely high level, then I am with you, but if you are using system running back in the traditional and most likely sense, then I call

Maybe you were just :IBTL:

Edited to add that maybe irresponsible was too strong, but I don't think it should have been written.

I'm not going to read the whole thread to find out if someone else already told he dumb ### OP that Random Shots is a humor/fluff column. Joe only puts that disclaimer at the top of each week's work..................Irresponsible? Get a F'in clue

I probably should not waste my time responding to such garbage, but there may be more intelligent people who feel the same way. Of course I know what random shots is all about, but while there is all of the humor/fluff and tidbits, there is an underlying message in everything Joe says. I am NOT bent out of shape over any of it and I love the random shots (as stated), but what is wrong with calling out Joe when he makes a comment and appears that he is lending credence to it when it is absurd? :IBTL: I already agreed that I didn't need to write it was irresponsible, but I do think Joe lending credence to that did show a little irresponsibility as I wouldn't want my name attached that "belief."

 

[gianmarco]

Think about it, a couple years ago people were saying "LJ will go for 2500 yards rushing".....Then the line falls apart/retires, Trent Green turns to mud and he's out of everyones top 5 and loads of people warning on him.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.

Then EVERY RB is a system RB using this thinking.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Joe's right that the whispers haven't been quelled, as is evident from several posts in this thread.

Maurile this is whispers, who is whispering??? There is NOTHING to these whispers except from people who are trying to stir the pot (and doing a poor job and losing credibility in my eyes)

I have to agree. I've always been very happy with all the content here, the random shots always gives me a chuckle and a smile or two. But this is nothing short of stupid, I expect some fishing from time to time, but not from the Staff/Mods/Owners. I don't care what Sproles did against the Lions last week, I care what Tomlinson did at the start of his career behind a garbage o-line in San Diego. Am I to now assume that research and memory are down at FBGs???

Wow, some support!!! Seriously, thanks for responding as I am starting to shake my head and think that other think LT is a system back??I did not want this to be a ##### session about Joe, that was not the intent, but I think it is OK to call out when you see it.

 

[Liquid Tension]

No way is Tomlinson a better receiver than Faulk was. Most of the passes Tomlinson catches are screens or within a few yards of the line of scrimmage. Faulk ran routs like a WR and could get open downfield and such. You never see Tomlinson do stuff like that. That is not a knock on Tomlinson; it is a testament to how awesome Faulk was.

LT has lined up as a WR many times (not as much as Faulk) and caught passes that way as well. I think Faulk was more like a WR than LT, but I did want to point that out.

 

[greenline]

I agree with you guys. Sproles>>>>Tomlinson.

 

[Banger]

System backs always break every RB record in the book. Jim Brown, Payton, Dickerson, all those guys were system backs. Too bad their systems weren't as good as LT's system.

Funny thread.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

 

[Traders2001]

Joe didn't say that he believes Tomlinson is a system back. He said what happened with Sproles would give some ammunition to people who do. Seems pretty logical.

Ahhh, someone getting to the crux of the matter a little bit. However, Joe said, "But those "system RB" whispers weren't quelled any Sunday" and to me he is not excluding himself from that discussion and he not only doesn't distance himself, he fuels it by his comments and the backing it up.Honestly, I have never heard anyone call LT2 a system RB before...maybe that is why I am reacting to the absurdity of the comment. When I see a system RB, I view that as someone who is only succeeding because of the system they are in...and that is folly when looking at LT2.

Who do you think of in the NFL as a system RB?

LJ is a system RB, and it's apparentPriest Holmes WAS a system RB in KC...

Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Rueben Droughns were system RBs in DEN, and it apparent

IMO Willie Parker is a system RB

and Emmitt Smith

Edge - Addai

 

[Pskov1420]

LaDanian Tomlinson's career lows for a season are 1236 yards rushing, 10 rushing TDs, 51 catches and 367 yards receiving and no receiving TDs, all of which are for his rookie year apart from the number of receptions (2005). The record of the teams he has played on in chronological order is 5-11, 8-8, 4-12, 12-4, 9-7, 14-2 and 9-5 so far this year. Last year when San Diego were generally considered the most talented team in the league he had 2323 yards from scrimmage and 31 TDs. In 2003 when San Diego went 4-12, were the worst team in the league and ended up with the number one pick, LT2 actually had more yards from scrimmage than in 2006, 2370 yards and 17 TDs.

LaDanian Tomlinson is not a system back, unless you count 'Give LT the ball!' a system (which Marty certainly didn't follow at times last season).

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Darren Sproles isn't chopped liver. He led the nation in rushing and yards from scrimmage and total yards while playing in the Big 12. He just isn't viewed as a feature back in the NFL because he's small and doesn't have a lot of power. He does have a lot of talent though. It's not at all surprising that he was able to fare well in spot duty and has nothing to do with the system.

Micheal Turner is a pretty big talent himself. The reason the Chargers backups do so well is that they are very good backups.