Who will start: Suggs or Droughns? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Who will start: Suggs or Droughns?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby ROYALWITCHEESE » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:27 am

Flockers wrote:
ROYALWITCHEESE wrote:
Daddymike59 wrote:
maddog60 wrote:I dont think there will RBBC. I think Crennel brought in Droughns to make sure he had depth in the backfield and could establish a running game so he can bring in a young QB and have a strong running game for the kid to fall back on while developing. I think Suggs will turn out to be a surprise #3 RB for teams in a lot of leagues. I think he wins the full-time starting job, with Droughns spelling him, and pushing him, while William Green makes it more obvious why just about everything from the prevoious era of the team needs to go.

THIS is a true statement. Romeo is NOT an RBBC coach Droughns was brought in to push Green off his Lazy ass into a 2nd rb spot. The true controversy is who is going to be #2 Green or Droughns.


You have a link proving that Romeo is not an RBBC coach?


Do you have one proving he is?


I never said he was. I said it was likely that he would. You said (look above) he is NOT (in all caps) as if you know. I'm just wondering if you had a source since you said it so definitively. But I guess I have my answer.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 849
Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby ROYALWITCHEESE » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:04 am

Then you would agree Denver is a superior run blocking offensive line compared to Cleveland? You yourself said, you dont care if girl scouts are blocking. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that does matter. The fact that with an inferior line Lee Suggs performed at the same ypc in 3rd downs as Droughns, clearly indicates that he is a better runner on 3rd down. If you dispute that, please, offer some sort of proof.

You still offer none. The only real proof here would be how each did on third down, which is equal. So there is no point continuing something neither of us can prove other than hypothetically.


Funny, in your previous post, you claimed my comments about Suggs could only mean that I was concerned he would be injured. Now that I've explained my comments, you claim to have understood them all along. You just got caught in a lie.

Uh, no. I said that about Droughns. And I have held my stance on 'strength not weight' for the entire argument. Once again nice try at a spin.

They don't suffer the size disadvantage Suggs does.

Ah so if two people weigh about the same then they are the same strength level and run the same? Please. Tell me. Why can't Droughns be stronger and a more powerful runner than Suggs? I've seen them both run and I've explained this numerous times now. Enough is enough.

Ok, I'll go slowly because you appear confused about this. Were we not comparing Lee Suggs' performance on 3rd down to Droughns' performance on 3rd down?
(The answer is yes, as our posts indicate)

Yes and they were equal.

Would it not then be improper to apply that statistic to how a RB performs on 2nd and short, or 4th and short, 1st and goal, etc?
(the answer again, is yes)

Okay. so Suggs is better because he gets EQUAL yards on 3rd downs? Well what about the rest of his attempts and his 3.7 average? So you are saying he is superior enough to equal Droughns on third down, just not enough to come CLOSE on every other down? This makes perrfect sense. If your theory applies to third down, then it should apply to all downs if Suggs is superior--at least to the tune of it not being nearly a full yard difference in ypc.

Therefore, where comparing how each did, we're comparing how they perform as a RB in 3rd down situations (both long and short). Therefore, we are talking about how they perform as a 3rd down RB, which by definition, is a RB used on 3rd down.

Again you fail to grasp this concept. A '3rd down back' is a specialty back for 3rd and long, not someone merely used on third down. And a 'third down back' is not necessarily used on every third down--only those where passing is probable. In fact true 'third down backs' are hardly ever used on third and short.

In 10 minutes you only found 6? That sounds like the devitation to me. And hints that most the rest of the league is like I said.


Not once have I labeled you with a swear, nor have I insulted your intelligence, despite your fondness for doing so of me.

So didn't post the word go---mn? Must have been some other blasphemer I guess huh? You didn't say 'learn english' to me. What a nice selective memory you have.

I'll say it for the last time: He ran behind Denver's offensive line. In the past 10 years, 9 RBs have ran for over 1000 yards in a season for Denver, and its been done with 5 different RBs in that time span. Denver has had a perennial strong running game despite rotating in and out RBs on an average of 2 years.

All good RBs with the exception of Gary.


Holmes does run with power, but that's because in my opinion, he's a complete RB. He has receiving skills, falls forward, and the speed to make cuts to avoid players. Clinton Portis is not a power runner. He had success, doing what denver does best, cutbacks. Cutbacks specifically are designed for smaller, speedy backs who can turn, and cut away from a defender, not run through them. Chester Taylor, I'll take your word for, having seen maybe one of the games he started. Though the sample size to evaluate his running style upon is rather small. Caddillac Williams has however not proven a thing. He's a rookie who has yet to play a single NFL game. He's in no way proven he can be an effective power runner in the NFL, and the automatic assumption that he will is poor analysis.

Portis doesn't run with power? Did you watch a Redskins game last year? Obviously not. Did you see ANYONE play last year?
Oh and Caddy ran through LBs in SEC. And by your theory he shouldn't be able to do that to 250 pound LBs. So down goes that idea.


Perhaps you're not understanding my overall point. My original post was Droughns was added for depth, to be a complete RB option, not for spot duty on 3rd and short. He will either back up Suggs, or spell him when he's tired (much the way Alexander or Dillon or LT gets spelled), or he will win the starting job outright. With only Suggs and Green on the roster, and given Green's work ethic and past, it seems logical that the Browns would get a guy to be a replacement should Suggs get injured, not the Duckett to his Dunn. If they wanted a 3rd and short RB, there were better options available, as I posted before.[/quote]

Well my point is that you don't pick up a Droughns and use him soley as backup. Suggs in not durable enough to be a full time starter as he has proven and Droughns will take carries away.

P.S. I see you went down in flames again in the Steve Smith thread. Once again proving that you either don't watch much NFL, or plain just don't get it.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 849
Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:56 am

ROYALWITCHEESE wrote:Then you would agree Denver is a superior run blocking offensive line compared to Cleveland? You yourself said, you dont care if girl scouts are blocking. Well, I hate to break it to you, but that does matter. The fact that with an inferior line Lee Suggs performed at the same ypc in 3rd downs as Droughns, clearly indicates that he is a better runner on 3rd down. If you dispute that, please, offer some sort of proof.

You still offer none. The only real proof here would be how each did on third down, which is equal. So there is no point continuing something neither of us can prove other than hypothetically.


And you fail to answer the question. Its very simple. Is Denver's offensive line better at run blocking than Cleveland?

Yes or No.

If you the answer is yes, then Suggs acheiving the same ypc on 3rd down is a great accomplishment than Droughns's.

This part of our discussion can go nowhere until you answer the question (I've bolded and italicized it for you in case you missed it).

Funny, in your previous post, you claimed my comments about Suggs could only mean that I was concerned he would be injured. Now that I've explained my comments, you claim to have understood them all along. You just got caught in a lie.

Uh, no. I said that about Droughns. And I have held my stance on 'strength not weight' for the entire argument. Once again nice try at a spin.


My bad, typo. Insert Droughns, where I typed Suggs. It doesn't change the fact that you said one thing, then claimed the other. I'm not disputing that you've held the stance of strength not weight, I'm pointing out that you claim my post meant one thing, then claim to have understood what it meant all along in your next post.

As for your strength vs. weight argument, you don't even provide any support for that until later, which we'll address.

They don't suffer the size disadvantage Suggs does.

Ah so if two people weigh about the same then they are the same strength level and run the same? Please. Tell me. Why can't Droughns be stronger and a more powerful runner than Suggs? I've seen them both run and I've explained this numerous times now. Enough is enough.


You asked how size mattering could be true given Denver's offensive line's size and success. I offered you a reasonable explanation, and this is your response? You're not even talking about the same points, you don't diagree with anything I posted in support of my theory. Since you didn't refute any of my points, I'll take that as acceptance. Unless you'd like to actually explain where I might've gone wrong with my analysis of why size matters more for a small RB than for a small lineman.

Would it not then be improper to apply that statistic to how a RB performs on 2nd and short, or 4th and short, 1st and goal, etc?
(the answer again, is yes)

Okay. so Suggs is better because he gets EQUAL yards on 3rd downs? Well what about the rest of his attempts and his 3.7 average? So you are saying he is superior enough to equal Droughns on third down (Maddog: Bingo! That's what I'm saying.), just not enough to come CLOSE on every other down? This makes perrfect sense. If your theory applies to third down, then it should apply to all downs if Suggs is superior--at least to the tune of it not being nearly a full yard difference in ypc.


Stop trying to apply the statistics outside of what they are. Suggs is better on 3rd downs. Therefore, in 3rd and short, the Browns would likely go with Suggs. Its no theory that Suggs is better on 3rd down, its statistically the facts. With worse blocking he acheived equal yards per carry. There is absolutely no reason why that would apply to first and 2nd down for a variety of reasons, the main one being that we're only examining 3rd down rushing attempts.

Therefore, where comparing how each did, we're comparing how they perform as a RB in 3rd down situations (both long and short). Therefore, we are talking about how they perform as a 3rd down RB, which by definition, is a RB used on 3rd down.

Again you fail to grasp this concept. A '3rd down back' is a specialty back for 3rd and long, not someone merely used on third down. And a 'third down back' is not necessarily used on every third down--only those where passing is probable. In fact true 'third down backs' are hardly ever used on third and short.


So there's no possible way someone could say 3rd down RB, and mean literally a RB used on 3rd downs? I mean, we are speaking English here, right? Is it too hard for you to grasp the concept that the term can be used to apply to what it literally means. Besides, we've defined what was meant by the term, so what is your complaint? You know now how the term was being used, do you dispute any of the statements made given the usage of the term?


In 10 minutes you only found 6? That sounds like the devitation to me. And hints that most the rest of the league is like I said.


Once again you fail to read my words: 6 starting RBs. Starters. That is the starter for 18.75% of the teams in the NFL. That's no deviation, that's nearly a 1/5 of the entire league. I didn't bother checking the stats on backups, as they would have a limited sample size.

And more to the point, your original post on this point:

EVERY running back has a drop off in ypc on 3rd down. If you don't think so look it up. So that argument is invalid which is why I dismissed it.


Those are your words Royal. You lied. Now you could be man enough to admit you got caught lying, or you can run from the issue like you are, by criticizing the data when you still haven't done/seen the research.

If you're going to continue lying, there is no point in this discussion.

I would actually like to respond to the rest of you post, you actually bring up one or two noteworthy points that are part of discussion instead of simply making personal attacks on me. So, when you're ready to act like a grown up, and stop lying, and admit to it when you've been caught lying, I'll more than gladly resume civil discussion. Until then...

EDIT: Found 2 more starters from last year that did significantly better on 3rd downs. In fact, these two averaged more 2 ypc more on 3rd downs. That brings the total to 8 starting RBs last year, that's 25% that not just did better, but did significantly better on 3rd down than any other down.

Yet ROYAl, you said EVERY RB does worse. You asked for me to look it up, and well I did. You've been proven wrong. That happens when you make assumptions and try to pass them off as fact. You get caught in a lie.

Also, your credibility sinks like a rock. :-t
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby ROYALWITCHEESE » Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:57 am

No dude your the one with no credibility, and have been exposed in more than one thread in here. The only reason you haven't been exposed by more than me on this thread is because nobody cares about the Browns running situation. You admit to having little game viewing--which is the only way to size up a players running style. That in itself should've ended the argument. But I try to have a conversation with a guy who still won't admit to using the Lord's name in vain on a freakin football message board, even though it's there. A guy who not only doesn't watch the games, but has no knowledge of the terminology needed to have a civilized discussion. The fact is that you grasp so little of what I am trying to show you, that I have to go off on tangents to explain what normal people should already know. The fact that you dismiss my questions, but would like your own answered is laughable. You don't own up to cursing or 'talking down', but you would like me to. You want me to answer questions that have already been answered, your feeble mind just didn't catch it. So go ahead and quit now that you have no more answers and that all your spins are spun. Keep believing that 3.4 is greater than 3.4 if you want. By your logic Green is better than Suggs. He had the same ypc and fewer fumbles, so Green will be the starter right? I hope you conitnue to post so I will continue to laugh as your half-witted opinions are dismantled one by one by countless posters. Like I said before the truth hurts. It wouldn't hurt so much if it wasn't true. So wipe your 15 year old nose and go to bed, after you watch the NFL channel to brush up on your lack of knowledge of the game of football. Maybe when you graduate high school we can talk without me having to explain what every little term means with regards to the argument. :-)
ROYALWITCHEESE
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar

Posts: 849
Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:07 pm

You know your arrogance has become humorous at this point. You still go off on personal attacks on me rather than provide any actual support for your opinions. I feel sorry for anyone who has to sift through all your nonsense to get to any facts or logical analysis. If you still don't believe it could possibly be that you were wrong about RBs all performing less on 3rd down, take your own advice and do the research. There's at least 8 starting RBs from last year out there, and I'll even give you a clue to get you started: 2 of them are hall of fame bound.

Or are you to be too ignorant to even verify what you try to pass off as facts?
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Sixxgunn » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:11 pm

Ummm....okay....I'll just chime in and say I hope Droughns gets some decent time on the field, as I just realised he was still on the WW, and I dropped Ben Troupe to pick him up. Droughns as my 5th back. Sweet!
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1065/sixgunn7ao0rc.jpg[/img][/url]
Sixxgunn
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4887
(Past Year: 3)
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Who?

Postby Redskins Win » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:29 pm

Wow, that was stimulating . . . I got spit all over me reading those arguments.

The fact is all Clevelands rb's will be used until 1 emerges as the man, I will speculate that this will be Suggs. Why you ask, becasue he is from VA Tech ;-D
Image[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
Redskins Win
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8272
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Kensat30 » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:57 pm

Denver has some of the worst run blocking on 3rd down in the NFL. All their lineman are the quick slender types that rely on cut blocking to seal the end. I think every lineman on that team is under the NFL norm in terms of size and weight. So when third and short comes up and they are forced to drive block, they usually get dominated...

Maddog you seem to get caught up way too much in statistics to prove your point instead of trying to understand what the statistics actually mean.

I don't get to see many Denver or Cleveland games, but I'm unable to find even one photo of Droughns making contact (though quite a few of him shying away from contact). I do however know that Denver's running game is based off of chop blocking and cut blocks, not the kind of scheme where a RB bulls through defensivemen.


That about sums up your ignorance on this topic. Anyone who watched a single Denver game last year where Droughns was the RB is laughing out loud right about now.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby moochman » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:19 pm

I realize a fundamental weakness in human nature that propels one to feel superior by insulting another, but is there someway we can stop trying to point out others deficits and just give and support our own opinions?

I feel that Suggs is a superior RB than Droughns. Faster, more fluid and less suspect. Droughns lands in a RB system and only played because of injuries, not only to Bell but also Q-Tip.

I know that Denver has one of the best O-lines in the game. Very well coached and work as an adhesive unit season after season. The Browns O-line is much less proficiant.

Based on this, it would seem to me that Suggs should win the majority of the carries. Droughns is a much riskier proposition, IMO.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Postby Kensat30 » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:30 pm

I respect knowledgable opinions, but when someone comes out and admits they have little first hand evidence and are basing their argument almost entirely upon statistics...
---
The simple fact is that Droughns was a battering ram last season. You can't deny that unless you didn't watch a Denver game last season. That's why Droughns tailed off at the end of the season and Tatum Bell was eased into the picture. Droughns got worn down quick because he liked to lower his shoulder and take on defenders.

This argument had nothing to do with Suggs being more talented and well rounded than Droughns (which I whole-heartedly agree with) and that's when the tempers started to flare. One guy speculated that Droughns was brought in to play the role of short yardage power guy because that is the type of runner he was when he was in Denver. Then another poster comes out of the woodwork to compare ypc, o-line, etc. when it's obvious to anyone with 2 eyes who watched the game that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:41 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact