In terms of talent and expectations, there may not be a more improved position on the Browns from June 2009 to June 2010. Gone is the old, slow, increasingly awful Jamal Lewis. Joining the party is another #31 out of Tennessee with good size and an upright running style. But while, Montario Hardesty is young and exciting, Lewis was counting the days until his retirement. Also, the versatile Peyton Hillis joins the mix. Add Hardesty and Hillis to the potentially very good Jerome Harrison, a healthy and young James Davis, and Chris Jennings, and you have a deep, competitive unit that could form the basis of a run-oriented offense: perhaps similar to the style of running game that gave us a successful December last year.
I should point out that the success of the running game goes far beyond these RBs. First, more than just about any position, a RB is reliant on teammates and playcalling for success. FBs (which will get their own preview) play a big part, as does the offensive line, of course. Plus, the Browns have two dynamic running threats in Josh Cribbs and Seneca Wallace that can supplement the traditional running game. They will be utilized, at times, as pure runners- especially Cribbs. But they better fit in other categories for preview purposes.
I'll stay true to Chris's format for this preview, for the most part.
1. Jerome Harrison: Starting Running Back
Experience: 4 Seasons
2010: 862 Yds, 5 TD, 4.4 YPC; break-out in last three games
Jerome Harrison spent 3 3/4 seasons as a seldom used backup. He showed flashes of breakout speed, but there were questions about his durability, size, toughness, and talent as a NFL player. He got more attention from Chris here at DBN than he did from the offensive coordinators he played for. But the former Washington State star took advantage of his first opportunity at extended NFL playing time late last season. The team was terrible, especially the offense; it would have been easy for Harrison and the team to coast through those last three games and wait for whatever regime change and roster turnover awaited them.
But following the lead of Josh Cribbs, Jerome Harrison showed determination and excellence amongst a bunch of disappointment and awfulness. What did he do in those 4 games?
@KC: 34 carries, 286 Yards, 3 TD
vs. OAK 39 carries, 148 Yards, 1 TD
vs. JAC Jac 33 carries, 127 Yards, 1 TD
Ok, so the games didn't matter, he didn't really have much pressure on him. He was also playing against some of the worst teams and defenses in the league, who might not have been giving much effort in stopping him. And, after that ridiculous game against Kansas City- an aberration for even the best RBs- he averaged just 3.8 YPC in the last two games. Caveats aside, Harrison was impressive and has earned lots of touches in 2010.
Worst Attribute: Size. At a listed 5'9, 205, Harrison is small. He was an absolute beast over those last three weeks, facing lots of 8 and 9 man fronts and carrying the ball a ton. But until then, he had a reputation of being unable to stay on the field. And while 35 carries/game against the Raiders and Chiefs in meaningless December games are nice, it is yet to be seen if he can make it through the tough defenses in the AFC North schedule staying healthy and effective.
Another bad attribute- blocking. The Browns didn't do much passing with Harrison as their starting back in December 2009. And camp and practice reports from the last four years are littered with mentions that Harrison doesn't block well.
Best Attribute: shiftiness. It isn't pure speed with Harrison. And it certainly isn't size. But it is rare that a defender gets a solid hit on him. He runs to space and naturally moves away from defenders. He is quick and shifty enough to do it. He is just a very good runner with the football.
Another good attribute: size. What? I said he was too small? Well, that has its advantages for running backs. His diminutive stature allows him to get lost behind the big guys up front and opposing linebackers lose him in the pack.
Various Comments/Expectations: I don't really expect a ton from Harrison this year. In my mind, the ideal situation has him as just one of several backs. I don't know if he can change my mind in camp. He never seems overly impressive in practice settings: evidenced by his failures to gain playing time without injuries to others. Besides, I've never been a feature back guy. But if Harrison can continue to show flashes while building consistency, he should be the lead man going into the season.
Job Security (as a starter): B
Player quality: B
Roster odds: 100%
==========================================================================================
2. Montario Hardesty - #2 RB/Backup
Montario Hardesty- #31
Height: 6-0
Weight: 225
Born: 2/1/1987
College: Tennesee
Experience: Rookie
2009: 1345 Yds, 13 TDs, 4.8 YPC ; 302 Yds receiving (at Tennessee)
Hardesty was something of a surprise pick for the Browns, but I loved it. I wanted a young, big, RB high on potential, and that's just what we got with the 2nd leading rusher in the vaunted SEC. Hardesty had a solid combine: 4.49 40 and a 41" vertical.
Worst Attribute: the burst. At least that's what the scouting reports say. Although...
Another bad "attribute" is his medical history- he has had a history of knee problems that prevented him from shining at Tennessee until last year- though he got through the 09 season with a bunch of carries against a tough schedule unscathed.
Best Attribute: Style. Hardesty compliments Harrison very nicely (and the rest of the small running backs on the team, for that matter). While both Harrison and Hardesty are patient runners with good vision, Hardesty adds size and strength to the mix. He has a heck of a spin move and runs smart.
Another good attribute- lack of games in college. While he practiced and was part of a big time program and had a ton of carries last year, he comes to Cleveland with minimal miles and hits taken. This can never be underestimated at the running back position.
Various Comments/Expectations: Camp and the preseason will be very important for Hardesty. Everyone from President Holmgren to the Running Backs coach must feel comfortable with the strides he makes before the season if he is going to be a major part of the offense come Week 1. He is off to a great start in gaining that trust. But he must keep that up and hopeful there isn't any problems signing him.
I expect him to get 10-15 carries a game right away. Anything less would be a disappointment.
Job Security (as a contributor): B
Player Quality: B
Roster Odds: 98% (2% chance of a holdout)
===========================================================================================
Peyton Hillis - Backup RB/Backup FB/Short Yardage Back
Experience: 2 seasons
2008: 343 Yds, 5 TDs, 5 YPC; 179 Yds receiving (as a rookie for the Broncos)
I didn't include Hillis' 2009, because it doesn't tell us much. Hillis was used as a FB, special teamer, and/or not at all for most games under their new head ass coach last year. But 2008 showed that he could fill in as a starter/feature back. That season he got over 15 carries in 2 late-season games. The result? Over 200 Yards rushing, 2 TDs, and a sleek 5.2 YPC.
Worst Attribute: "Tweener". Is he a FB or is he a RB? Sure, flexibility is good, but it also tends to mean that someone isn't really good at any one thing or position. Hillis has been a part of some very good running offenses in the pros and colleges, but it is difficult to know how much can really be attributed to his blocking (and running) because he doesn't stay in the same role for entire seasons. Really, this isn't so much of a weakness of Hillis as much as it is an extra variable we have in trying to evaluate him.
Another bad attribute: speed. He ran a 4.6 at the combine, and he lacks real quickness.
Best Attribute: Versatility. Ok, so I like looking at two sides of the same coin for these things. Maybe it is a cop-out, sorry. But what else can you say about a guy that played FB, HB, WR, TE and returned punts and kicks in the SEC. I wonder what his career would have been like at Arkansas if the Razor Backs didn't have Felix Jones and Darren McFadden.
Another good attribute: character. He has persevered through injuries, demotions, and difficult coaches and always took the high ground and excelled whenever given the chance.
Various Comments/Expectations: Hillis will be known to most fans as the dude we got for Brady Quinn. As a major part of the "haul" we got for our one-time future-franchise QB, Hillis will certainly be a disappointment to some. I expect very little in terms of statistical output. But as a good bench player and an option for short-yardage plays, I think he can be a very good piece to a pretty solid running game.
Job Security (as a consistent offensive player): C-
Player Quality:C+
Roster Odds: 70%
===========================================================================================
4. James Davis: Backup Running Back
(Don't ask me about the picture of the Lions player, I don't get it either.)
Experience: 1 year
2009: injured.
Davis was a lot of people's favorite pick for sleeper of the Browns 2009 draft. There were some irrationally high hopes for a 6th round pick.
Worst Attribute: lack of greatness at anything. You can be a successful back in this league even if you can only run in the 4.5's in the 40. You can be successful even if you are only 5'11, 215. You can be successful even if you aren't that elusive. You can be successful even if you are susceptible to shoulder injuries. You can be successful even if you can't move an NFL pile. But I'm not sure that you can be successful if you are less than ideal in each of these areas.
Another bad attribute: I don't want to rag the guy too much, I really do like him. But there are consistent reports that he is also a very below-average pass blocker.
Best Attribute: I'm tempted to say well-rounded- but I;ll choose something. Davis does have some things going for him. He had awesome sophomore and junior seasons at Clemson and probably would have been a mid-round pick in 2008. He does have something of a good burst through the hole, and I'd like to see him in a one-cut and go system some day in the NFL.
Various Comments/Expectations: Frankly, he is an injury-prone, not-that-fast-not-that-big running back. And those are pretty easy to find in the NFL. I'd like to see him get a chance, I just don't know if that chance is going to be in Cleveland, barring an injury. I see him making the team- if he can out-show Jennings and anyone else in camp. But I don't see him making the active roster very often, regardless if he makes the team. He's the type of player that would benefit from an expanded roster or a developmental league system that has been discussed a little bit this offseason.
Job Security (as an active player): D-
Player Quality: C-
Roster Odds: 51%
===========================================================================================
5. Chris Jennings: Backup RB/Practice Squad RB
Experience: 1 year (in the NFL, played 1 year in CFL)
2009: 220 Yds, 1 TD, 3.5 YPC (including an awesome game against the Steelers!)
There is just too much talent in front of him. You can probably repeat all the things I said about Davis, except Jennings lacks the awesome college seasons to fall back on.
Jennings is a good pass catcher and is quick enough to get to the edge. Just ask the Steelers...
Player Quality: D
Roster Odds: 40%
===========================================================================================
6. Thomas Brown: Special Teams/Practice Squad RB
Thomas Brown, #29
Height:5-8
Weight: 200
Born: 5/5/1986
College: Georgia
Experience: 2 Years
2009: Practice Squad then active roster for a few games, no stats.
I know nothing about this guy. Apparently, he was drafted by the Falcons back in 2008, but was injured for the season in the preseason. I vaguely remember him at Georgia, but I don't think he was a standout and had some injury issues on top of that.
Roster odds: 5%
1 recs | 137 comments
I’m extremely excited for Jerome Harrison to finally get a shot as a starter. I like that he won’t have to be overworked either, with the depth.
Simmsinns - June 25, 2010
Great write-up by the way, good to see you back.
Simmsinns - June 25, 2010
Agree. But although this line is true — “the deepest stable in decades” — that is more a function of how bad our running game has been than how “deep” our RB set is. A ton of potential, and I am genuinely optimistic, but not one of these guys is proven. I am superstitious and part of me cringed at that line and thought of Chris’s QB grade going into the 2008 season.*
*Not a knock at all on Chris — search through the archives and you will find yours truly agreeing and arguing vehemently that DA is the future of the franchise and BQ supporters were crazy to even consider trading him or taking a 1st and 3rd for him.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 27, 2010
I get the sentiment. But, if you can’t be optimistic before camp, what’s the point? And you are right, the title: “deepest stable in decades” was meant to show both our depth now and lack of depth the last 20 years at the position. Also, I did add a question mark and pointed out a lot of the caveats with each player.
Though I think the “not one of these guys is proven” is a bunch of crap and a cop out. Jamal Lewis was as “proven” as you could get, but he still stunk.
Ryan Kelsey - June 27, 2010
No disagreement there — as I said, I am very optimistic here as well. It’s my superstition (which is by definition completely irrational and need not be catered to by anyone) that made me cringe.
I take it that you mean that you agree that they are not “proven” but that “proven” is highly overrated. If so, I agree to an extent. However, to use the Jamal Lewis example, he was “proven” when he got here, but the operative word there is “was”. He was widely viewed — correctly I might add — as over-the-hill. He did surprise us with a solid 2007 but 2008 and 2009 were bad and worse. Those two seasons were not a surprise. My point w/r/t Harrison, Hillis and moreso with Hardesty is that they have never proven anything and until they do, they remain question marks with a ton of upside.
Let me also reiterate that I think this was a solid post — I was just noting a few things about one line that made an irrational side of me nervous.
TheDriveStillHurts - June 28, 2010
Yeah, I think we agree mostly. I’m saying the concept of “proven” is highly overrated generally, and with RBs especially.
Ryan Kelsey - June 28, 2010
I was at that UT game vs. Georgia. I sat in the end zone opposite of that TD run. Not a big Vol fan, but my girlfriend is a proud alum.
Anyway, I’m very on board with the Hardesty selection. If healthy, he will put up nice numbers with the Browns. They really need a back with his size and skill set. He also is a good receiver for a back his size.
Mike Beckwith - June 25, 2010
Yeah I see where the scouts are coming from..(rolls eyes)
Andrew Tolliver - June 25, 2010
They obviously missed that tape right there, definite burst and power.
realmccoy - June 25, 2010
Didn’t Jennings get in some sort of legal trouble? I don’t expect him to make the roster unless he goes off in practice.
iwearmocs - June 25, 2010
James Davis is the sleeper of the group
deemac3248 - June 25, 2010
He is the coma of the group. Deep sleeper.
realmccoy - June 25, 2010
I have to mention this, but you forgot to mention that James Davis kept CJ Spiller at bay and Spiller was a the backup for Davis’ sophomore and junior seasons.
That alone says a lot about his ability and the reason Davis fell in the 2009 draft was due to an injury. Otherwise, Davis was projected as a second or third round pick prior to the injury and he could have gone even higher if he came out after his junior year.
Davis is a solid RB for depth and can run the rock if another RB higher on the depth chart goes down with an injury.
I see his roster odds quite a bit higher than 51-percent, especially since the Browns will be a run heavy team, they will want to carry at least Harrison, Hardesty, Davis, Hillis, and Vickers in 2010.
theW0LF - June 25, 2010
I trust Ryan’s assesment much more than yours.
51% or less that he makes the team.
SpecialBrownie - June 25, 2010
He had seniority over spiller, but that’s about it. And injury is never a good thing when evaluating a player’s future prospects. (thanks LGT)
I think I mentioned just about everything else you said here- he was really good as a Soph and Junior, he got hurt and his stick fell. His only chance at significant PT is an injury.
I say he makes the team, but he is competing with Jennings, et. al. For the last) spot.
Ryan Kelsey - June 25, 2010 via mobile
I wouldn’t ever call it a good thing, but I think this statement can be misinterpreted. Injury can cause evaluators to overlook real talent and not factor in the amount of recovery time it takes to get back from injury. A player’s first year back from injury may be below their normal simply because of the recovery that is taking place, the evalutors might mistake this for the new skill level. Granted, not all players make a full recovery from injury, but quite a few do and when fully healthy and recovered, can get back to that skill level.
In this particular case, I don’t see Davis as being anything special, but I do think he makes the roster this season.
Roger Dorn - June 25, 2010
agreed. I think he may one day be a servicable guy in a rotation. He reminds me off a far less skilled version of Shaun Alexander…similar style of play…no huge holes in their game but in college they didn’t stand out…
bross09 - June 25, 2010
You must be joking, or talking about a different Davis and a different Alexander.
Alexander was incredible in College, in his last two seasons he had like 40 TDs combined rushing and receiving and over 4,000 total yards from scrimmage- in just his last two years in the SEC.
Davis also was a standout in college- just overshadowed by CJ Spiller his senior year, mainly because of injury. But his Sophomore and Junior years were outstanding, both times all conference, once a semi-finalist for Doak Walker award. I mean common.
Also, Alexander was significantly bigger and stronger than Davis. I don’t really see the comp.
Ryan Kelsey - June 26, 2010
I was disregarding college production when I made the comparison but was more talking about the skill set. I was reading scouting on Alexander that described him a jack of all trades and a master at none. He got the job done but didn’t really stand out in one area.
And I will hold to that. similar style, similar backs in strengths and weaknesses but Alexander was much more skilled.
I meant to say they did have good college production. i remember Alexander doing well in college and I know that Davis was a standout. My bad in misleading you there.
They both weighed in at the combined just under 220 pounds and both measured about 5’11’’. Alexander in his prime looks a bit bigger than Davis, but Alexander also was bigger than as a rookie…as a rookie he looked like Davis.
Skill wise, they are very comparable. Good Hands, Average Speed, keeps feet moving, not an extremely powerful runner, Somewhat elusive (though this and pass blocking are the areas where Alexander is way better than Davis), good vision.
If davis had an outstanding senior season and if spiller wasn’t there, there would be talk about him in the mid 2nd round as a player I would say, though I am not sure if He would live up to that position.
What they said back then about Alexander is he may never be a star, but he will have a long career in the NFL because he can do so many things and I feel somewhat the same about Davis.
bross09 - June 26, 2010
I forgot how frustrating it is to try to talk to you.
Ryan Kelsey - June 27, 2010
I forgot that I am not allowed to make a typo…
I WAS disregarding college production in when I compared them as players. However, I do remember them both doing well.
I guess even mentioning
would have been unnecessary because I wasn’t looking at college production.bross09 - June 27, 2010
You’re right Dorn. I was stretching the logic in that statement to cover RB’s, while it is certainly more true in other positions and other sports.
Anyways, susceptibility to injuries is a real concern.
Ryan Kelsey - June 26, 2010
I agree. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just saying that the statement can be misconstrued if not interpreted by the reader in the way you meant.
Roger Dorn - June 27, 2010
Speaks more about the coaching at Clemson than his talent
realmccoy - June 25, 2010
Good read, I agree that there is a good amount of talent there. I understand the feelings on Peyton Hillis, and I have to say, I am jealous of this pick up. He has a lot of talent as a runner and receiver. He provides depth to both the RB and FB position (where you already have one of the best). I’m not sure how you will use him, but in more of a “west coast” system, his skills can shine (think Tom Rathman in San Fran back in the 80’s).
NYSteelersFan4 - June 25, 2010
HIllis scares the bejesus out of me. I am secretly hoping that he will not make the team. Remember the year Romeo and Chud fell in love with Vickers as an offensive weapon? Had trick plays and wheel routs for him? Those plays failed at key times and it was a real buzzkill for me. I have an eerie feeling that Daboll and his deranged brain may find the same fascination with Hillis. I have no basis for this opinion, so it is basically a paranoic worry based on significant distrust of Daboll’s capabilities or lack thereof.
realmccoy - June 26, 2010
Personally, a guy wouldn’t scare the bejesus out of me just because the OC wants to be creative with him…plus, I think he would succeed much easier on those plays than vickers….
bross09 - June 26, 2010
This is silly.
golanbatrac - June 26, 2010
I don’t think Daboll’s deranged brain will come into play this season due to the Holmgren Stick and Mangini’s desire to keep his job.
Villeslgr - June 27, 2010
i believe mangini’s married, so hillis would scare the bejesus out of me if i were mangini.
Dawg Nuts - June 28, 2010
Married to Mark Shapiro’s sister.
Roger Dorn - June 28, 2010
nice. he’d better watch out, hillis will be gunning for her.
Dawg Nuts - June 28, 2010
When did Davis turn into a Linebacker for the Lions? I do not remember this.
SpecialBrownie - June 25, 2010
Did not notice the disclaimer.
SpecialBrownie - June 25, 2010
I’m interested in the possibility of carrying 5 backs this year. I see Hillis as being the big wild card. If the staff decides to use him as and h-back, tight end, receiver, single-back, blocking-back hybrid (not as a starter at any position, but spelling them all), then we might be able to justify keeping 5 backs active.
This potentially steals a spot from a tight end or receiver though. I’m not sure there is room to lose a receiver, since everyone is developing and we still don’t know who will be good and who will bust. He or Davis could also end up being a special teams threat, thus justifying keeping them both active.
rebuilding year - June 25, 2010
That is probably how I’d use Hillis. They did this last year a little with Gaines. i don’t think HIllis is as good of a blocker, but if he can run routes, catch, and occasionally run the ball, it could be worth having him and Vickers.
I would get rid of a WR in his place. Keep Robiskie, Massaquoi, Stuckey, and Mitchell (maybe on the practice squad). Cribbs, too, if you count him as a WR.
I don’t know if that is already too many players.
rufio - June 25, 2010
he may not be as good of a blocker as gaines, but gaines was more of a blocking specialist. I see more versatility in Hillis in that I can see him playing at least 3 positions somewhat effectively.
bross09 - June 25, 2010
Just cut Jennings.
He’s not good.
Bernie19Kosar - July 1, 2010
Correct!
Roger Dorn - July 2, 2010
I’m hoping to see a lot of Hillis and Hardesty.
golanbatrac - June 25, 2010
Size
I wish the “can’t be good because he’s small and going to get hurt” stereotype would go away. There are plenty of examples of small guys having a long career and even being stars. Warrick Dunn, Barry Sanders, Maurice Jones Drew, Chris Johnson, Thomas Jones, Jamaal Charles, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LeSean McCoy… Just to name a few that are under 215lbs and had great seasons/careers.
If he can’t block, he cant block, but for his size to be such an issue to a lot of people makes me crazy. Fact is we still don’t really know what he’s capable of and I think thats mainly because of Romeo being so dedicated to vets.
F1sh - June 25, 2010
I’ll go through all those backs one by one.
Warrick Dunn only had 1000 yard seasons in 5 of 12 seasons, was wildly inconsistent, and was never any better than league average.
Jerome Harrison is not Barry Sanders, second best running back of all time
MJD has only played four years and only gone over 200 carries once
Chris Johnson has played two seasons and is a much better athlete
Thomas Jones has only had 5 1000 yard seasons out of 10 and didn’t get significant time until his 5th season. his career 4.0 YPC isn’t all that impressive.
Jamaal Charles has started 12 career NFL games. he’s got even less in-game action than Harrison.
DeAngelo Williams has never been a feature back, always part of a tandem, and on a team that consistently runs well, regardless of who has the ball. he’s also only had 4 seasons.
Joseph Addai has only had 4 seasons, averaged under 4 YPC his last 2, and didn’t crack 1000 yards in either season.
LeSean McCoy has 1 season, 4 starts, and 150 carries in his career, for an outstanding 4.1 YPC.
There are only 3 guys on your list who can claim any kind of longevity, and only Barry Sanders did it consistently and as a feature back. So unless you can come up with better examples, you’re making a poor argument.
notthatnoise - June 25, 2010
this…
plus I will add Jones isn’t that small and Johnson is so fast that he rarely (if ever) takes a big hit. Harrison is shifty enough to be somewhat the same with taking hits but nowhere near as good. Shifty guys (like barry) I think can have decent longevity but I worry about smaller, “bowling ball” types like MJD who do try to run over people…
bross09 - June 25, 2010
Agreed. MJD is short – not small. Guy is a beast in the lower body.
realmccoy - June 26, 2010
Same with Deangelo Williams…the guy is almost 220 pounds…
Harrison is built better than some of these guys…However, i think Deangelo will last longer than MJD purely by running style.
I have noticed that in general, elusive backs tend to have more carries before they break down…guys like Tiki Barber and LT; purely for the fact that they can make guys miss and are hard to tackle head on and therefore don’t receive a lot of hits. pure speed guys are similar, but once they lose a step or two, they get pummeled…elusive guys don’t need elite speed. Power guys who pound it out (like Jamal) also seem to break down 200-300 carries earlier, or one full season. MJD is built for a small guy but his style is trying to roll over everyone whereas Deangelo can, but he chooses not to take those huge hits and therefore I believe will get more carries in the league.
bross09 - June 26, 2010
Barry Sanders is number one.
golanbatrac - June 25, 2010
jim brown was better. better numbers in fewer seasons, in an era where offenses had it tougher.
notthatnoise - June 27, 2010
I think we were talking about short, smaller RBs and from what I saw, it seems like golan was saying barry was the best smaller back in history. Jim Brown doesn’t qualify…I do disagree if he was talking about #1 ever.
bross09 - June 27, 2010
No, I was talking all time. Barry Sanders is #1.
We’ve had the conversation before. The argument hinges on whether you give any credit to the line Brown rushed behind or not. Whether you admit that that line with multiple hall of famers and multiple players with multiple seasons as all pros, and who blocked for not just Jim Brown, but another Hall of Famer in Leroy Kelly, and another Hall of Famer in Bobby Mitchell, (who went to the HOF on his receiving credentials, but averaged 5.4 YPA in his four years behind that line) might have been a little better than what Sanders had to run behind.
golanbatrac - June 28, 2010
We’ve had this conversation before
golanbatrac - June 28, 2010
yes…and the argument can be made in this sense that just running the ball, barry MAY be better, but RBs have more assignments than just running the ball. They also catch and block too.
Sanders was never that good of a pass blocker in his career, however Brown was excellent pass blocker in his prime. Brown was also a great receiver out of the backfield and a weapon in the passing game in an era where pure RBs (not the RB/FL bobby mitchell type) were not very involved in the passing game. Brown was more productive in the passing game in an era where RBs were not used as much as weapons out of the backfield.
And personally, I have never been a fan of sanders’ style. he has a ton of yards, but also has the most yards lost in history. He would break off a 20 yard run, then a 3 yarder, then one for a 5 yard loss, then one for no gain. that is still about 4.5 yards per carry, but its also a 3 and out.
bross09 - June 28, 2010
Brown also had tight ends and a quality line in front of him. Sanders was on an island as a blocker with a porous line, no tight ends, and in a scheme that required complex reads by both the quarterback and the receivers. He had to hold his blocks longer with zero help and often multiple players coming free and the QB scrambling in and out of the pocket. There’s nothing about Jim Brown that says he would have done any better given similar circumstances.
Sanders did plenty well in the passing game. He’s no Marshall Faulk, but neither is Jim Brown. Their receiving stats are comparable.
And if we’re talking about the difference between eras, Jim Brown never faced anyone as big, as fast or as strong as the average defender in Sanders’ era.
Scheme. You aren’t supposed to be able to run out of the run and shoot. That Sanders racked up as many yards as he did is amazing. He had no help. No Tight Ends. No Fullbacks. Unblocked linebackers on every play, often in the backfield as early as the handoff. How many times did Jim Brown have to avoid contact on his first step after the handoff?
golanbatrac - June 28, 2010
This argument doesn’t ever have a satisfying outcome. I think most would put Jim Brown as the best all time, though some would still say it was Sanders.
Both were amazing, and I’ll go with Brown. But Sanders did a lot of things you aren’t supposed to be able to do.
rufio - June 28, 2010
this is a “no clear cut winner” argument, but I’m with Golan. Sanders was the best RB of all time in my opinion. What he accomplished with little to no help forms that opinion for me.
Kimble_79 - June 28, 2010
wait…so sanders consistently had to block 2-3 guys and Jim brown was only blocking CBs occasionally blitzing? there have been some very good Pass blocking RBs on bad blocking Teams…Clinton Portis for example. Just because the guys around you can’t block does not inherently make it harder for you to…and even if this was true, it would not close the gap between them in Blocking skill…Jim brown was just a better blocker, period. Put them in a vacuum blocking, Brown is better.
If we are talking about difference in eras, Jim Brown would be a physical freak for THIS era too…this was a guy about the size and speed of AD (but a little bigger). I remember everyone said Peterson was a physical freak and jim brown physically was similarly good…
Jim Brown was more effective as a weapon in the passing game in an era. Even with more modern offenses like Green Bay at the time, the RBs still paled in comparison when it came to use and effectiveness in the passing game…He was as effective as some flankers like Lenny moore.
Jim brown avoided contact on the first step after often…He just didn’t have to as much as barry. my point is becase of the style of play of barry which was dancing in the backfield and making people miss, it would either go for a big gain or a big loss. I would rather take someone who would get positive yardage everytime and has excellent vision so that he can find the right seam or hole to run through.
bross09 - June 29, 2010
This is where the argument ends:
If you’re seriously going to say that Sanders had less than ideal field vision, there’s really no point in arguing. You’re just making it up as you go.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
I am not making it up as I go at all…
now you are just trying to discredit my argument just because I never mentioned Barry Sanders’ vision. His field vision was definitely great, but
a) I would say Jim Brown’s was greater
b) even when there was a hole, he would sometimes try to dance around in the backfield which I do not see as that useful.
bross09 - June 29, 2010
How often did you watch Brown play?
Villeslgr - June 29, 2010
Dude, it’s not worth it. He was in diapers when the run and shoot was in vogue. He doesn’t get it and he never will.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
while he may not be making it eloquently, he’s got a point. a 20 yard run followed by 3 no gains is 5 ypc, but its also a 3 and out. Jim Brown never went backwards (hyperbole alert, before someone takes it seriously).
notthatnoise - June 29, 2010
Well, first, it’s not a three and out. The twenty yard gain picks up a first (and flips bad field position or moves the team into FG position depending where they started the drive).
Second, he doesn’t have a point. Put Jim Brown behind that Lions line, with no fullback and no tight ends, in a division with John Randle and Reggie White, and he doesn’t sniff a thousand yards. Sure, Brown would have been less likely to get caught out in the flat while running for his life like Sanders, but the 1 and 2 and 0 yard gains he would have gotten inside wouldn’t have been anything to write home about.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
I don’t think it is fair to compare by “plugging” someone in to another era.
Football players are bigger, faster, and stronger today than they have ever been, but that doesn’t count against someone who did what he did in a different era.
You are focusing on Barry’s offense and the surrounding talent, as well as Brown’s. The comparison of the players themselves is what should count.
The point remains that Sanders was inconsistent; he had to be taken out in the game where he went for 2000 yards because they didn’t want him to lose three and not reach that milestone. We could get into a game theory debate as to when it is good to have one 40yd TD run and a bunch of 1 yard gains vs 5 yards every time, but then we’d be talking about the teams and not the players themselves.
Both the era and the scheme should not count against either guy—and really the points you bring up could be argued for either side. Barry’s scheme didn’t stop him from just lowering his head and picking up 3 yards as opposed to dancing and going for -3. And if his really was such a passing offense, constraint plays still should have kept defenses honest and he should have done better in the passing game than Brown. If Brown playing in an era of 3 yards and a cloud of dust, it should have been easier for defenses to prevent him from running the ball.
Similarly, if defenders in Brown’s era were smaller and slower, he should get credit for being “ahead of his time” and a once in a generation physical specimen.
None of what has been said really makes a good case for either side. You simply have the best big power back ever against possibly the most agile human being in history.
rufio - June 29, 2010
I wasn’t so much discounting what Brown did as pointing out (for the umpteenth time) how amazing it is that Sanders did anything on those teams and in that offense. Even a back as good as Jim Brown couldn’t have done much of anything given the handicap Sanders played under.
But you cannot compare the players without considering the talent around them or the scheme. I know that you don’t think that teams ignore the talent surrounding a player and the scheme that the player played in when putting together their draft boards. Why would it be any different when comparing two retired players? You say Sanders was inconsistent, but disallow the possibility that not having Tight Ends or a Fullback or All Pro and Hall of Fame Linemen in front of him might have had a little something to do with that inconsistency.
This assumes that there was three yards there to be had. A big assumption given the quality of the linemen and the lack of a FB or TEs.
You really need the personnel to keep defenses honest. Had he played in Houston in that run and shoot with Warren Moon and that bunch, then yeah, the passing game would have kept the defense honest and given him some room to do some things. In Detroit, he was the sole focus of every defense. Teams could live with the possibility that Erik Kramer or Rodney Peete might beat them.
Again, not trying to take anything away from Jim Brown, but with lesser linemen, no fullback and no tight ends it certainly would have been easier to stop him, no matter what the defenses were prepared for.
And if defenders in Sanders’ era were stronger and faster, he should get extra credit for putting up the numbers he did against them.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
What came first? The chicken or the egg? Anyone look at much footage of Barry in college, knowledgeable about his college line.
Obviously Barry had a particular style but if he line was better would he have been caught behind the line so much. Was he dancing to dance or was he trying to make something out of nothing (no matter how ill fated those attempts might be at times).
Villeslgr - June 29, 2010
Sanders in College.
He seems to save all of the razzamatazz for after he’s through the hole. It’s amazing what a fullback and some blocking will do for a guy.
Had he played in a normal offense, Emmit Smith would be 5,000 yards shy of the rushing record.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
This is exactly the kind of speculation that is pointless.
So guys like Timmy Chang and Graham Harrell, they were two of the best QBs to ever play in D1, right?
Additionally, having a great RB and no pass options can often lead to stats like <4 yards per carry and >8 yards per attempt. But again, this is getting away from who is the best player and toward game theory.
But you are mainly ignoring my point which is:
All of the things you have mentioned can be interpreted as both strikes against and bonuses for either RB being the best of all time.
Which is precisely why the arguments have brought up don’t solve anything and never will.
rufio - June 29, 2010
Yeah, blocking is pointless.
Both were better collegiate QBs than Erik Kramer or Rodney Peete were pro QBs. And both programs had better lines than the Lions ever had.
You’ll have to explain to me how having no full back, no tight ends, and one of the worst lines in the league could be considered a positive for a running back.
Likewise, how having a first rate line and blocking tight ends would be a negative.
golanbatrac - June 30, 2010
That’s not what I meant, I had a point, and you know it. Way to sink to childishness instead of actually trying to understand what I am trying to say. That really is just totally winning me over to your side in this.
Lets say you are a HS team with a 16 year old Adrian Peterson at RB.
Odds are, he is far and away your best option on offense.
Defenses probably commit damn near all their resources to stop him because of the above. Because of this, they can probably limit his YPC to a reasonable number, but in doing so, they essentially dare the WRs and QB to beat them. This effect is probably doubled if that HS team has AD and a good line and a good blocking fullback.
Because the WRs are single covered due to the defensive commitment to AD, the O could easily get enormously inflated YPA averages in the passing game.
Thus, because this HS team has a great RB and running game in general, they have low YPC and high YPA.
Having no TE and no FB means there should be less players in the box to stop the run. If a team running the run-n-shoot (or any spread team, really) sees LBs in the game to stop the run who will have to cover WRs in the event of a pass, they should be passing all game long and dominating that matchup. In that situation, the reverse is true; the defense will probably commit more resources to the pass, the YPA will go down, and the YPC will rise.
There are two ways of dealing with the star: guard LeBron 1-on-1 and make him score 50 to win, while shutting the role players down, or double LeBron and make the other guys beat you. Just because Bron has a lower scoring average doesn’t mean he is worse than Kobe.
rufio - June 30, 2010
meh.
I was half worked up last night for one last argument before I cut the cord on the internet. Today, I couldn’t care less.
You win. Sanders sucked.
/discussion
golanbatrac - June 30, 2010
no one ever said sanders sucked. I prefer a consistent 5 YPC to a home run threat that gets a bunch of negative yardage. therefore, in my opinion Jim Brown was better.
notthatnoise - June 30, 2010
No one said Sanders sucked. I just think there is no case for one over the other other than “I like his style better”.
rufio - June 30, 2010
Obviously you haven’t listened to a single thing anyone else said.
Buckeye Brad - July 1, 2010
yawn
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
sigh
Buckeye Brad - July 1, 2010
burp
Roger Dorn - July 1, 2010
honk
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
BZZZZZ
notthatnoise - July 1, 2010
the first line my first comment once we started talking Brown vs. Sanders
bross09 - July 1, 2010
maybe you didn’t see them before you posted this, but I feel like the posts directly above yours should let you know we are done with this discussion.
notthatnoise - July 1, 2010
It’s been over, like, five times now.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
yeah…but use the Up button…I was merely replying to Golan when he said “oh, you guys are right, sanders sucks”…
I am sorry I have not been able to respond during the time that this whole thing escalated…
bross09 - July 1, 2010
Something escalated?
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
From “We’ve been here before” to “This is pointless” seems fairly lateral, really.
Everything goes in cycles….
RelapsingDawgCatcher - July 1, 2010
Had I realized that this was a big thing, I would have brought my A-game. Or at the very least put on some pants.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
Ah, it’s the Internet. Pants are completely optional.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - July 1, 2010
As proven by myself right now.
Underwear is mandatory, however.
SpecialBrownie - July 1, 2010
LOL…REC
Kimble_79 - July 2, 2010
No one sent me this memo…and I am at work.
Roger Dorn - July 2, 2010
Ha! Hilarious!
Bernie19Kosar - July 2, 2010
escalation as in more people than you and I getting involved.
bross09 - July 2, 2010
How about the best big power back and the most elusive back in history?
Anyway, I’m done with this. It’s an argument that goes know where.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
Oh you no were it goes.
DBN history.
Villeslgr - June 29, 2010
Know way!
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
I tend to think that should Sanders of had anything resembling an offense that supported him more, he would undoubtedly own just about every rushing record out there. Paul Brown was ridiculously good as well. So yeah, we could argue this for days and not get anywhere.
Kimble_79 - June 30, 2010
and he argues that Barry has similar receiving stats to Brown so they are as good…but then points out that the offense he was in was more passing oriented…wouldn’t that logically give barry an edge in targets in the passing game?
disregarding the fact that RBs are targeted now more than in Brown’s era, this invalidates one of golan’s own arguments.
bross09 - July 1, 2010
Someone should do a breakdown of the run-and-shoot (not the spread; the run-and-shoot). There’s only like ten total plays in the offense, so it shouldn’t be all that difficult.
Not a single passing play designed to go to the back. Four hot reads, four checkdowns, and then, maybe, the back gets the ball if the quarterback happens to still be standing and if the back has managed to successfully release from his blocking assignment and if there aren’t three unblocked linebackers between the qb and the back. It’s a goddamned chinese firedrill. Everything has to go wrong and then everything has to go right for the back to get the ball.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
that may be true…however how many offenses in the NFL truly are designed to throw to the RB? some offenses may be tweaked for a good pass catching RB to get the ball more, but RBs in general are usually last resort options in most offenses…
bross09 - July 1, 2010
It’s easier to get to the last resort if you have blocking. It’s also easier to get to the last resort if you have a competent quarterback. The Lions had neither. It wasn’t until Scott Mitchell that teams even considered not sending seven on every play (they’d sometimes only send six in order to double Herman Moore in the red zone).
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
but does that mean that Barry sanders is much better receiving the ball than the stats show? I am inclined to believe not, though maybe with a different system they might be a bit higher.
bross09 - July 1, 2010
I don’t think this is entirely correct.
While the Run and Shoot usually keeps a few things vanilla (i.e. formations or # of “plays”), this is because the offense requires a lot of time and effort in other areas, mostly reading on the fly (in the original Mouse Davis/Ellison version).
Each one of those routes in the ~10 plays has at least 3 variations. Multiply that by the number of receivers and then the number of plays, and suddenly you have a full playbook.
All of the plays are designed to go to the back if a certain sequence of events occur, same with the WRs. The RB is the first look on at least the screen play, which is probably the RnS’s #1 constraint play. The Rb is likely the hot on many plays.
It also should be noted that like most/all offenses, the RnS has been around a long time and no coach will simply adhere to the original offense in it’s entirety if 1. The offense isn’t working and 2. Their star player happens to be someone who doesn’t get a lot of looks in the offense. Unless that coach was a big enough idiot not to recognize that Sanders was very, very good, there were plays designed or tweaked to get him the ball.
All pro offenses run some RnS concepts. We ran the switch last year (or tried to at least), and if you watched Gruden’s ESPN thing with the draftee QBs, Clausen’s hand signal (where he blamed the WR for running the wrong route) was out of the RnS.
So what, exactly was Detroit running at the time? If it was the Ellison/Davis/Jones “pure” RnS, I doubt anyone would have racked up 20 carries per game for a 10 year career.
rufio - July 1, 2010
It was the same run and shoot they ran in Atlanta. Pretty damn close to being a pure run and shoot.
Houston used a TE in their run and shoot (being the only run and shoot team with a QB worth protecting).
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
I have a hard time believing a pure RnS would have had a RB with 343 carries in a season.
rufio - July 1, 2010
I have seen tape of him…so as much as just about anyone under the age of 50-60…
so is Pujols better than Babe Ruth because no one can verify what they saw with the Babe?
bross09 - July 1, 2010
I’m just asking. With Babe, the accolades I have heard are about his numbers. If you want to talk about his stance compared to Pujols his movement in the field or his movement on the bases, then yes you do need to have seen him to verify.
You are personally talking about and describing Jim Brown’s running in games, which in my opinion would be something you would need to see, it’s not something you can just approximate from looking at his stats.
Villeslgr - July 2, 2010
and like I said, I have gotten some good glimpses of him on tape…probably not enough to make a detailed scouting report, but enough to get a good idea of some of his better qualities.
bross09 - July 2, 2010
Very logical well stated points.
realmccoy - June 26, 2010
Good to see you back, Ryan.
gahnki - June 26, 2010
Great job DD. You didn’t disappoint. And glad to have you around again.
Hopefully this wasn’t a ‘stick-n-move’ and you disappear again.
Brownie's Year - June 26, 2010
Thanks. And thanks to the other welcome backs and kind words.
I’m just now out of my self-imposed hiatus for football. I usually take 6 months or so completely off because I like the other sports too much, and I just have been overloaded by over-coverage. I’ll peak in on the draft and scan headlines for trades, but that’s about it. I do the same for basketball and baseball, but not to the extreme.
Anyway, I will be here often through camp and definitely once the season starts. I’m doing at least one other position preview and I have some other things planned for the preseason and depth chart projections and the like.
Ryan Kelsey - June 26, 2010
That’s good to hear.
Brownie's Year - June 27, 2010
I think if we commit to it, we can have a lot of yards on the ground this year. I like our backs (first time I have said that since….ever?) and our line should be able to open holes. Whether that translates to points and/or wins, I don’t know. But hopefully, we can establish ourselves as having a good running game this year if nothing else.
rufio - June 27, 2010
We have potential at RB right now, nothing more.
I think we went into the 2003 season with a similar group and with similar expectations. We had a first round back in William Green who had just put together a fairly strong finish to his rookie season (including 170 yds vs. the Falcons in our final regular season game); we added Lee Suggs in the fourth round that year; and we still had Jamel White, who had just come off a season with 63 receptions and nearly 1000 yds from scrimmage as a backup to Green.
I hope this group turns out better than the 2003 group, but it’s anything but a certainty that they will.
golanbatrac - June 27, 2010
this is a good reality check
notthatnoise - June 27, 2010
Suggs was supposed to be a terror. WTF happened to that guy?
Brownie's Year - June 27, 2010
I never understood why a back that lasted till the 4th had expectations set that high.
I also didn’t understand why we drafted Green in the 1st, but that’s a different story.
Lastly, I see more reason to expect good things from this group. Harrison, unlike Green, has done good things in terms of running and catching the ball every time he has been on the field for his entire career. His strong game wasn’t 170 yards, it was 286. And what little he has proven, he has proven without any passing game at all. I would love to have 2002 Couch over 2009 Quinn/Anderson.
Hardesty didn’t go for 1325 in the Big lEast, he went for 1345 in the SEC. As mostly his school’s only offensive weapon. He was drafted two rounds ahead of where Suggs was in what is believed to be a deep draft.
And all of these guys are hard working, good character guys (maybe with the exception of Jennings, who I think is the worst of the group)
It certainly isn’t a certainty, but I think the odds are better this time.
rufio - June 28, 2010
Is the Z feature not working for anyone else on this article? No offense, (because it could just be the system) but almost everytime a minion posts something, DBN freaks.
SpecialBrownie - June 27, 2010
Z is working for me here.
rufio - June 27, 2010
Z isn’t working for me either. it never works for me on posts that attach video.
Dawg Nuts - June 28, 2010
Speaking of Z not working, a rapper won’t convince LeBron to play for the Nets.
TheRealSlimShady - June 28, 2010
Jay – z likes his team as it is amazingly.
SpecialBrownie - June 28, 2010
Z works for me in Firefox 3.6.4. Let me know the browser you had the issue with and I can forward a bug email to support@sbnation.com, seeing as at least two people said it didn’t work.
Chris Pokorny - June 28, 2010
same browser
SpecialBrownie - June 28, 2010
works fine for me with firefox 3.6.6
Kimble_79 - June 29, 2010
sometimes it doesn’t work for me, and i reload the page and it works fine.
notthatnoise - June 29, 2010
If Javascript/Ajax don’t load completely before the user hits “Stop” in their browser, or if for some reason the loading of a webpage cuts out before it completely finishes loading, the scripts don’t always get implemented (which is why reloading the page would make them work). That might be the issue some are experincing with the “z” button, and if you guys aren’t pressing “stop,” then something must be cutting the connection to the page midstream.
Chris Pokorny - July 1, 2010
I haven’t had any problems with that, but getting the home page to load is often a hassle. Too many widgets and trackers gumming up the works. Even ESPN, with all the crap they stuff onto their pages, loads faster than DBN.
golanbatrac - June 29, 2010
Agree 100%. Advertising is great for marketing and such, but there comes a point when you can have too many and your website becomes bulky and painful to load
Kimble_79 - June 29, 2010
I assume you’re referring to the ads, which I have no control over. Regarding the widgets and stuff, DBN has a lot less stuff on the sidebars than a few of the blogs out there.
One of the things I’ve done over the past few months to try to improve front page loading time is adding the “Continue reading this post…” links, so that the loooooooooooooong posts aren’t occupying the entire front page.
I’ve thought about removing the roster because it’s kind of long and I don’t imagine many people go to the front page to look at the roster — they can easily click “roster” at the top of the page to see it.
Chris Pokorny - July 1, 2010
Usually my page loading time is hit and miss…sometimes its spot on and sometimes really slow. Nothing consistent though.
I think that would be a good ideal on the roster. I agree, I don’t imagine many look at the roster on the front page, and if they want to see it, just click at the top.
We can put a Sprint advertisement in where the roster is at currently :)
Kimble_79 - July 1, 2010
These are the one’s I notice most often when it hangs for thirty seconds or more:
getclicky
sitemeter
ytimg
With the exception of the photo slideshows, the content itself loads fast (when sitemeter and whatnot aren’t clogging up the works).
I’ve only had problems with ads once (during the draft). One of the Sprint ads was giving me fits, but that was a browser issue, I’m sure.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
Also: the problem seems to be at any and all SBN blogs, not just DBN.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
Thanks for the info. After some quick research,
getclicky = Internal web counter for SB Nation sites
sitemeter = External web counter for SB Nation sites
ytimg = server you (y)ou(t)ube(im)a(g)es, so they only appear on posts with YouTube videos embedded.
I suspect that ytimg might have something to do with the issues; Google searches indicate people have had issues when using Firefox: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=670b8866bccea85d&hl=en
However, if this is the problem, it seems beyond SBN’s control (just depends on whether a video is embedded or not, and then issues might be YouTube’s fault).
Chris Pokorny - July 1, 2010
Are there less glitchy sites from which we can embed videos?
rufio - July 1, 2010
Just a guess- there are lots of other sites that are cleaner than you tube and the videos are more reliable and of better quality. Problem is, none have the database of you tube’s content.
Ryan Kelsey - July 1, 2010
The easiest thing would be to simply not embed videos. Links work fine and don’t clog the pipes.
golanbatrac - July 1, 2010
exactly
Kimble_79 - July 2, 2010
I’ve heard from a few reporters that they were doing quite a bit of short passes to Hardesty during practice. Swing passes and such. Its still early, but this guys versatility sounds like something the Browns needed (power running, finesse soft passes out of the backfield, ect). I’m really hoping he turns out to be a very productive for us and becomes an elite RB in the league.
Kimble_79 - June 30, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.