Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by Riverman, May 30, 2008.
Um...no, that's not the debate we're having. The POINT is that Brown - when healthy could get more ypc but was not durable enough to be a full time starting RB (in any season). And he coughed up the ball way too much!
So if you think of Brown as a backup RB and EG as being done...neither is the answer for the Titans as a starting RB. 2004 confirmed this for both players. Both needed replacing (as a starting RB - Brown was fine as a backup as long as his touches were limited). It is for this very reason that Brown can't find a starting job. He wants starter money and I'm sure points to his 1000yd season and 4.9ypc...but notice how that's not getting him a job whereas even EG coming off of several below par ypc got a chance to compete for a starting RB job. What does that tell you?
Eddie didn't start one season too many if there was no one on the roster who could take his place. Brown wasn't ready for fulltime work in 2003 considering he was learning the offense and even in limited action got dinged up...as in the NE playoff game.
Again, I'll glady admit Brown's ypc was better if you admit his total yds rushing and receiving were negligibly different, his # of carries was much lower and his number of fumbles was far greater....
None of this was ever my point.
My point would be that Brown was an Upgrade to Eddie in 2004. Regardless of the fact Brown didn't play the whole season, and that he never became a full time replacement. In 2004, I would take C.Brown's 11 games for 1000 yards over another repeat Eddie 2003 performance.
I never said C.Brown was the "answer" at RB for the Titans. What's going on regarding C.Brown TODAY has nothing to do with whether or not he was an upgrade in 2004. If Brown couldn't be a starter in 2003 (which I question the whole learning the offense and all that, I mean, Adrian Peterson did fine last year learning the Vikes offense in his rookie year) then we could've brought in a different running back that season to share carries with Brown and gotten more production than what Eddie gave us. Once again, I don't really blame Fisher because he couldn't have known Eddie would've had such a bad year and really been worn down as a RB.
actually I think everyone but Fisher knew Eddie was done a season or two before the 2003 season.
Well, Brown ran for a better YPC but was seriously a problem with fumbling and not being able to be a real starter has negative consequences too. He played a little more than half the season (220 carries) but had 20 or more carries in only 5 games (less than a 1/3 of the season). His fumbling led directly to 2 losses (2 lost fumbles in EACH game). And he had 2 more fumbles that we recovered so it could have been worse.
So you look at his YPC and say he's an upgrade, I say look at how it means we have to put personel in positions we don't want them in (because he's not durable and Antwain Smith isn't exactly a speed back who's good at draws or catching swing passes on 3rd downs and converting those to first downs), and lost 2 games because of his fumbling and could have lost more. So to me, that's not a good scenario and needs fixing. An upgrade over Eddie would have been a RB situation that didn't need fixing since Eddie staying or Eddie going didn't matter. We got hurt in different ways with Brown starting but did get his ypc for 2004. If you think that's an upgrade, that's your opinion.
I say it doesn't matter because the position needed upgrading (over George or Brown).
It proves he's not a starting RB and needed replacing just as much as EG needed replacing. If your point is that he was an upgrade for half a season, then why not say he was an upgrade in this game and worse in that game? It's a pointless debate.
You might have noticed the Vikes had no QB so Peterson was their offense. So if he misses a pass block...is it that big of a deal? In 2003, McNair was our offense (and MVP and injury prone) so protecting him was more important than getting a few more yards and a few more fumbles from Brown. Plus, Brown wasn't able to start even if we wanted him to because in several games he got dinged up (even in limited playing time). As I mentioned before, he was given more and more carries later in the season...especially in the playoffs. I can't argue with how they used him in 2003.
DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!! This is EXACTLY THE POINT! We needed to bring in another RB so Brown could stay the #2 RB (which he's good at). That means we needed another #1 RB since neither EG nor Brown was suitable.
So you would've rather had Eddie in 2004 than Chris Brown?
Yes. I call it an upgrade when a back can get my team 1000 yards in 100 fewer carries. Bigger plays.
Even if the running game still needs fixing, Chris Brown was better than Eddie in 2004. That's all I see to it, for 2004, Chris Brown helped upgrade our RB position. Maybe you would rather have had Eddie fall forward for 2 yards and never fumble than have Chris Brown make a few huge plays and give us a great running average over 11 games, that's your opinion.
I'm not arguing that the position didn't need upgrading after 2004. The whole point of this started by stating that Fisher plays players too long. He did with Eddie in 2003. Once we had new running backs in 2004, the running game improved. A big reason was Chris Brown even with his faults.
If it's pointless, why are you continuing it?
The fact Chris Brown isn't a starting running back proves nothing. What does it prove regarding upgrading the running back position in 2004? What if we'd went with 2 running backs in 2004 that split carries evenly? Would that make any difference? Would that somehow mean the running game wasn't upgraded?
Chris Brown was one of the people that upgraded our running game in 2004. That's all there is to it.
I'm not arguing that.
I don't think Chris Brown was a great running back. I liked him as a draft pick and was disappointed with him as a starter. He's nothing great or special. I'm not a big supporter of his.
But whether or not Chris Brown was suitable as a starter has nothing to do with whether or not he upgraded our running game in 2004.
So to clarify: I'm not arguing about how great or sucky Chris Brown is. The ONLY point I was making (and really in context of the thread, agreeing with Gloat about) was that Chris Brown upgraded our running game in 2004 over Eddie George.
No, Chris Brown didn't do it by himself. Yes, he was the biggest factor that upgraded the rb position.
Whatever became, and becomes, of Chris Brown's career is irrelevant to the original point: Fisher sticks with his favorites too long.
It happened with Eddie. The proof is the improvement we saw in the running game in 2004.
IMO, this is the best point in the argument. Yes, Brown provided more yards, but he also took away points by fumbling. And he would have gotten McNair killed in 2003. Bottom line, we don't really need to discuss it because both options sucked and it was 5 years ago.
and that's the exact reason this entire 3 page debate started. Just to say that.