- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
Should I take you not answering the question as saying you do?
No. I have no relation to him.
Should I take you not answering the question as saying you do?
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the Browns leading rusher was a healthy scratch and the team still crushed the Steelers, and ran for 158 yards and 3 TDs. It's not even a stretch to say we haven't had a single RB at any point since returning as good as any of the 3 currently on the team.
You can come close...the 2007 New England Patriots and '96 Chicago Bulls were pretty damn dominant.
The Browns 3 RB's through 6 games have a combined total of 151 carries for 715 yds and 8 TDs. They have a total of 6 catches for 28 yards.As much as we may like to suppress memories of Jamal Lewis (Ratbird) and Peyton Hillis (douchebag), the current backs have work to do to match up to those guys' best seasons in Cleveland.
Lewis '07: 1304 yards/9 TDs rushing, 248/2 receiving
Hillis '10: 1177/11 rushing, 477/2 receiving
No doubt that this is the best stable of backs we've had at a single time, but I'll go no further than elevating them over Reuben Droughns. So far.
As much as we may like to suppress memories of Jamal Lewis (Ratbird) and Peyton Hillis (douchebag), the current backs have work to do to match up to those guys' best seasons in Cleveland.
Lewis '07: 1304 yards/9 TDs rushing, 248/2 receiving
Hillis '10: 1177/11 rushing, 477/2 receiving
No doubt that this is the best stable of backs we've had at a single time, but I'll go no further than elevating them over Reuben Droughns. So far.
Do they have a Jamal Lewis workhorse type back? No, but their production is far exceeding a Rueben Droughns.
The way I read elcheato's post was that each of our three current backs, right now, could be considered better than any other RB we've had. I disagree with that, for now.Hillis had a great year if you completely discount the six or seven games where he absolutely shit all over the bed, floor, and hallway on the way to the toilet.
...
We could easily have a single back reach Hillis's yardage mark, and another who could reach the TD mark... While splitting carries. A lot more impressive.
Rk Tm Year Att Yds ▾ Y/A TD
1 CLE 2014 165 732 4.44 8
2 CLE 2007 116 551 4.75 3
3 CLE 2004 131 539 4.11 2
4 CLE 2009 138 531 3.85 1
5 CLE 2010 133 514 3.86 4
6 CLE 2008 129 492 3.81 2
7 CLE 2001 148 461 3.11 2
8 CLE 2002 108 411 3.81 1
9 CLE 2011 122 408 3.34 2
10 CLE 2003 127 402 3.17 1
11 CLE 2013 112 395 3.53 1
12 CLE 2012 94 389 4.14 4
13 CLE 2006 119 375 3.15 4
14 CLE 2000 106 374 3.53 1
15 CLE 2005 104 371 3.57 0
16 CLE 1999 92 342 3.72
The way I read elcheato's post was that each of our three current backs, right now, could be considered better than any other RB we've had. I disagree with that, for now.
No, Hillis wasn't a true star back, and yes, I might take this trio collectively over a "workhorse" like Lewis, and definitely over Droughns (which I said in my original post), but I don't think I'm being ridiculous or confrontational by saying that the guys, taken as individuals, haven't proven themselves to be more than NFL-caliber runners. This isn't Cleveland fatalism 101, where I expect to be underwhelmed for the remainder of the season. We certainly could see the scenario play out like you described it, DJTJ - operative word in both of our statements being "could." It's just that, considering the early stage of the season and given their respective question marks – Tate's durability, West's deactivation, Crowell's possible case of butterfingers – I think elcheato went a little too far in anointing them.
West's deactivation really never got any explanation, but I think it's because he isn't getting out on the chip and release and he's getting ate up by blitzers or taking ones on when he doesnt need to.