Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GIants' Free Agents: Can Andre Brown Carry The Load At Running Back?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by PennState1 View Post
    I totally agree with you but I still have no reason to believe that Cox is a guy we can get excited about or rely on even if our Oline improves. If Cox were any good, even with a bad Oline he would have played ahead of a guy we recruited off his couch and out of the NFL right?
    If we had a good OL, we could easily platoon Brown, Cox, and one other speed back (if Wilson is indeed down for the count, I'm thinking Jernigan could fill in that role, or we could grab a sleeper like Silas Redd in the draft). It worked for us in 2008.

    I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite team in the NFL.

    Comment


    • #92
      we definitely need an upgrade at RB for next year, if any of our RBs look good to anybody its because its easy to look good when everybody else is crap.

      Comment


      • #93
        I think we just need depth for injury concerns. I think Hillis and Brown are both quality backs. Cox has fresh legs. Wilson is the Xfactor.
        Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by B&RWarrior View Post
          I think we just need depth for injury concerns. I think Hillis and Brown are both quality backs. Cox has fresh legs. Wilson is the Xfactor.
          Given the right offensive line combination.... I agree...its just enough running back by committee to compliment what should be ...at least on paper a good passing attack
          "When I was 15, I could not believe how dumb my father was.....when I was 25, I could not believe how much he had learned in 10 years"

          1st to use the phrase "In Reese we trust"

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by fansince69 View Post
            Given the right offensive line combination.... I agree...its just enough running back by committee to compliment what should be ...at least on paper a good passing attack
            When I say quality I don't mean they are superstars or dynamic playmakers. I mean I think they can have some success behind a good run blocking O-line.

            Wilson is the only kid I see in our backfield that has that game breaking ability right now. I really hope the kid can have a full recovery.
            Because of all of the effort and examination being poured into these predictions, the draft is a robust market that, in the aggregate, does a good job of sorting prospects from top to bottom.1 Yet despite so many people trying to “beat the market,” no single actor can do it consistently. Abnormal returns are likely due to luck, not skill. But that hasn’t stopped NFL executives from behaving with the confidence of traders.

            http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...eat-the-draft/

            Comment


            • #96
              trade for a featured back. broken foot and over the hillis isnt going to cut it for a full season unfortunately.

              Comment


              • #97
                To answer the original question, hell no. Way too injury prone and has fumblitis. Imo, he is a 3rd stringer on any other team. When a player has a ton of "ifs", he is probably not worth much effort.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by RoanokeFan View Post
                  Why get hung up on his "carrying the load" when he can platoon with Hillis and whoever else survives camp?
                  100% agree. We don't need a "feature back", we need a revamped OL that blocks and a RB that simply gets the job done, blocks, and holds onto the ball. A back that can catch the ball out of the backfield to add a little versatility and give Eli some high percentage throws would be a bonus.
                  Last edited by dakotajoe; 01-11-2014, 08:58 PM.
                  Miss me yet? sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by dakotajoe View Post
                    100% agree. We don't need a "feature back", we need a revamped OL that blocks and a RB that simply gets the job done, blocks, and holds onto the ball.
                    You just described a feature back.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                      You just described a feature back.
                      In a perfect world a back has all of those qualities. Some backs have the majority of those qualities but lack explosion and find themselves out of the NFL. For example, Hillis (I know he's had fumbling issues).

                      I rather sign two complimentary RBs that may not have all those skills rather than putting all my eggs in one basket and signing a feature back to a big contract.
                      Last edited by dakotajoe; 01-11-2014, 09:15 PM.
                      Miss me yet? sigpic

                      Comment


                      • Considering the giants were in the bottom of the pack in rushing attempts I'd say no rb we had could carry the load. I think we need to look for a few new running backs. Connor should stay... I liked Hillis...

                        The problem was we really will never know what the rbs will do. When kg was calling the plays he wasn't a running OC. We never gave a back or a committee an average of 20+ every game. They were always looking to make Eli and co. the source of the spotlight.

                        It's cool with me but at the end of the day we need OL and rbs that can carry a load.
                        Go Giants!!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tony Bruno View Post
                          When kg was calling the plays he wasn't a running OC. We never gave a back or a committee an average of 20+ every game. They were always looking to make Eli and co. the source of the spotlight.
                          That isn't true, they absolutely caned Brown when he returned. He had, what, 30 carries? They did the same with Jacobs and Hillis. They wanted to run.

                          Comment


                          • We are very lucky to have gotten Brown back......hes just a winner

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                              That isn't true, they absolutely caned Brown when he returned. He had, what, 30 carries? They did the same with Jacobs and Hillis. They wanted to run.
                              1 game? 2 games? Tc always preached balance. I'll bet there are very little games that we ran more than passed.
                              Go Giants!!!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tony Bruno View Post
                                1 game? 2 games? Tc always preached balance. I'll bet there are very little games that we ran more than passed.
                                Few teams run more than they pass, and that wasn't your original assertion. You said that KG never gave a committee an average of 20+ carries per game, yet the Giants averaged 21.5 rush attempts per game over the length of the season. From the Chicago (Jacobs) game onwards, they averaged 25 rush attempts per game:

                                Code:
                                VS      PASS     RUSH
                                
                                DAL     42       12
                                DEN     49       19
                                CAR     27       15
                                KC      37       19
                                PHI     52       17
                                CHI     26       26
                                MIN     39       29
                                PHI     39       29
                                OAK     22       35
                                GB      35       24
                                DAL     30       30
                                WAS     28       20
                                SD      32       20
                                SEA     35       14
                                DET     42       19
                                WAS     32       30

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X