DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Duke Johnson

From PitDawg



Duke Johnson was drafted the year after we signed Isaiah Crowell. They complemented each other perfectly. Then last year we drafted Nick Chubb who is a beast and an every down back. The only time someone was brought in to start ahead of Johnson was last off-season with Carlos Hyde. He was moved when it was realized how much Chubb should play.

I don’t think Johnson is an every down back. I do think he could be the primary running back in an offense that passes the ball a ton.

With the investment in both Chubb and Hunt, I don't see us as the team you describe.

Duke can be a compliment to a feature RB. I certainly won't try to dispute that. Where I think the difference of opinion comes in is how much of an actual contribution will he be? Looking at how Freddie used him in the last half of last season, it appears that contribution won't be a lot within this offense.

For the record, there is no investment in Hunt.
He is the equivalent of finding a $100 bill on your doorstep, and like a found $100 bill, he's here for the short-term.

He will get another contract, for sure, but it might be in the form of us trading him and our trade partner negotiating a new deal with his agent.

So we won't be paying him when he's eligible to play?

Who?

We signed Carlos Hyde in March, the draft was in April. We were not sure, I presume, whether we would get Nick Chubb or any RB for that matter... Hyde was signed to start with Duke staying in the same role he has always been in.. then we drafted Chubb and quickly learned that he could start.... so we sent Hyde away and NOT Duke..

Because of Nick Chubb. Duke Johnson didn't get put on the bench because he isn't good, he got put on the bench because Nick Chubb is a top five player at this position in the league.

Not getting the opportunity to do something and not being able to do something are not the same thing.

Great point, DC. This is what will be fascinating about Hunt v Chubb this season (just much later in the year based on the suspension) as it could be similar to the scenario you mentioned with Hyde v Chubb. They are very similar backs except that, at least right now, Hunt is the better receiving back. I think many people immediately rule Duke as the odd man out, but he brings such a different dynamic than those two that his value is unique. I personally don't see a team with both Hunt and Chubb on it in 2020. I think a decision will need to be made, if both perform well in 2019, which one you would rather have? Because at least at that point, you can get something from Chubb if Hunt proves to be better, or just let Hunt walk in FA if Chubb is the better back. I think both have proven they can be a feature back and might not want to be a back up to the other. Duke's ability to play anywhere and be successful at it can create headaches for teams. If Duke isn't here, it still doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have a player like him. What he does is extremely valuable.

Also this wasn't Kitchen/Monken's offense. Kitchens was calling plays based off of Haley's offense. We really don't know what the offense will look like. We just know that Kitchen's philosophy relies a lot on doing the unexpected. Running when they think we'll pass, passing when they think we'll run. Duke, if used properly, can add a wrinkle into our offense. I think that's one of the primary reasons why he hasn't been traded. Not to mention we only have Hunt on a one year rental, hopefully longer, but we can't commit a lot of money to him.

Kareem Hunt is an exclusive rights free agent after the 2019 season.

You make a good point about Monken. He comes from a pure Air Raid background. Here's Mike Leach on offensive balance:



The problem with all this is that Nick Chubb is great as a pass catcher as well as a runner. That's what will keep Duke Johnson on the bench more than anything.

Do we though?

There were zero expectations or pressure on Kitchen's when he took over. He could get away then with those wild, unexpected plays. All I am saying is, based on the expectations put on the team for this season, I think he'll be a tad more deliberate and conservative with play-calling.

I think CHSDawg was talking more about running when the other team expects pass and pass when the other team expects run.

I know we passed a ton out of two (and three) tight end sets once Kitchens took over the play calling:

Good stuff, cfrs. Thanks for pointing that out.

Exactly what I meant. Also bring back the wing T

The straight T, wishbone, heck even the old single wing can be tough to play against if you don't have ground pounder defense. Just hope this works itself out. The offense during preseason will be interesting.

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/video/film-room-freddie-kitchens-play-calling-vs-falcons

j/c:

It's gotten to the point that people are stretching the truth. That's too bad.

Win the argument! To hell w/the truth!

j/c

I keep reading references to Chubb being 'less' than others as a receiver. Every time I think of this play.

Are you talking about on here or in the general media?

Because people on here have been saying he is a good receiver.

Not intending to derail the thread, just making a comment on this. Almost every year I wonder if it'd be better for the NFL to have the draft before FA.

I've never thought of that. Interesting. I need to think about it some more, but again........interesting.

The teams would definitely use this as a way not to pay free agents.

I dunno... I like giving the current players an opportunity first... so kind of like FA before the draft... plus you have a chance to fix issue s in FA which better drives what's you need in the draft... if you switch it you may pay a higher price... with FA first you can always use 'we can just draft a [your position] in negation

J/C ..... I do remember Chubb missing a block and people calling him a bust because he would never be able to block ever ... in his entire career ..... and that he should be tied to the bench forever, until he was cut.

I remember that, too... but I also remember that p.o.v. fading pretty quickly.

Because in the end, people want a back who can bust off long runs.

If you want blocking, put a back-up guard in to the game.

That said, Chubb's blocking is good enough for me.

This was a surprise to see. I love Kosar's analysis too.

These formations can force adjustments. Thanks for the link. Offense needs more wheels, you don't have to invent them always. Chubb could own some of this. BM is still a huge threat, but by forcing attention to RB's, he can be more lethal if a smart coach can find some alternatives to all pass.

I have a good memory and I don't remember that. I remember him missing a couple of blocks and people pointing it out. I also remember people referring to his college days and how he was not asked to block. I do not remember people calling him a bust.

I loved the Chubb pick ... there were a few other backs i would have loved to get there and Chubb was right there at or around the top of the list ... was happy with that pick right out of the gate ...

I was very worried during pre-season ... it looked to me like he was running with a piano on his back ... he looked slow and lethargic to me .... i was worried ...

I pointed out my concern but never called him a bust ... said i hoped time and reps would take care of that and i have no clue what happened but in the regular season there were no piano on the back concerns on my part ... *L* ....

I do remember the blocking concerns ... the big one was on a blocked punt i believe ... huge hoopla over that one ... pics singling him out made it easy to see and he was rightfully lambasted for it ... he basically “alligator armed” (kind of threw his shoulder at dude in passing) the block ...

It never really concerned me cause blocking is all about desire and that dudes desire and work ethic are well beyond reproach ... i have no clue how good he is at it now, but there’s no doubt in my mind he’s working hard at it and will continue to do so until he’s perfected it ...

It was on a poor block on a punt. Nice recall.

Good thing he probably isn't going to be on the punt block team this year, and probably isn't going to be used as a lead blocker on running plays in 2 back sets. In those sets I don't see us doing a lot of lead blocker plunges. I see more a fake inside and the second back taking it wide or some type in interior counter play.

I loved the Chubb pick because I saw a lot of Georgia games over the past few years. I saw the initial slowness as well, but wasn't all that concerned because I knew he had a full set of gears. I just chalked it up to uncertainty causing some hesitation. Pretty common in rooks early on, especially backs. They have to learn the plays like any other player, but they have to learn to read their linemen. All linemen approach a block a little differently. Some go in to it early, some wait a little longer, thus the back has to know that or he can make his lineman look like a oaf who can't make a block if the back cut out of the block and the lineman looks like he is blocking air.

One of the knocks on Chubb coming out of college was that he wasn't effective running routes out of the backfield. The thing is he wasn't asked to do that much at Georgia.

It turns out that he was very good at it. I'm sure he improved along the way. He runs for power, can break off the big one, effective in the passing game, and maybe the most underrated thing of all: zero fumbles. He had an all-around outstanding year.

Chubb still isn't a great pass blocker, but he wasn't asked to do that much in college. He might improve on it and he might not, but given the rest of his game, I don't see him on the bench much.

Which only backs up my point. Duke had just been given a contract, yet while having Duke on the roster, they still went out and signed an "average at best" RB in Hyde for the starting RB role.

Had they have seen Duke as a starting RB, they would have signed a back up RB for Duke. Yet people keep trying to claim Duke is the back up starter now. It's a nice "possible scenario", yet nobody knows if that's true.

I just wanted to back up my point that Hyde wasn't seen as some great back. But rather a place holder until he was replaced. In 2017, the year before we signed him, he averaged just 3.9 yards per carry. Had they have seen Duke as this great threat and weapon, why would anyone have signed a RB that averaged less than 4 yards per carry to start over Duke?

If you would follow most people's arguments on this topic, this is not on the top of the list. Do some people think Duke is a backup? I don't know...maybe. Being a backup RB or not is nowhere near the argument most people are making. And I don't think that is the argument DC is making

No, it's just one point that some people are making.

Here's another. People claim it was Haley's playbook and it was. Yet there were plays within that playbook that called for Duke to be used.

So if this is a reasoning for why Duke wasn't used more in the second half of last season, that would force one to lead to the conclusion that Freddie decided not to use those plays very often and/or lacked the ability to execute small wrinkles into those same plays to expand Duke's role in contributing.

It would mean that Freddie simply refused to use some great weapon he had at his disposal. None of that makes sense to me. The logic used by those making this talking point is that Freddie not only used Haley's playbook, but called the same percentage of plays for Duke. Why would he do that if Duke had the ability to be a huge contributor?

Maybe it's the fact that Baker rarely uses dump off passes and tends to be a better QB when he pushes the ball down the field. That's what I saw. And Duke simply doesn't seem to fill that role.

Yeah, that is another argument at the bottom of the list. Duke was used more efficiently by Kitchens over Haley- And I'm not talking targets, carries, etc. It's also where Duke got all of his 2018 TDs.

For me, this isn't an argument about who has used him more or less. I'm saying, since he has been here, he has been under utilized period.. by EVERY coach. Simply putting him on the field as an option more would help this team.

Once more I ask you: In place of who?

Which other weapon do you diminish in order to accent Duke?

Landry? OBJ? Callaway? Chubb? Njoku? Higgins? I also expect that we will use the TE Harris a fair amount as well in 2 TE formations.

I can argue that every one of these players is of more value on offense than Duke.

We can only put 5 weapons on the field at any time. Of the 6 (or 7) of the players I listed above, whose playing time do you diminish to increase Duke's?

You can line up Duke on 4 WR sets. He can go in the backfield on 1st down where more teams are now passing. You can have two back sets. Will it take a WR off the field sometimes? Yeah it would, but increasing Duke's snap count by 15% while decreasing others', variably, by 5% is fine by me.

Landry? Sure get him off he field. It's fine by me.
Have all WRs/Duke on the field and not Njoku? Cool.
Put two backs on the field and remove either Calloway/Higgins. Cool.
Spell any WR for a play or two because he has been playing a lot. Cool.

I don't understand why this is difficult for you.

Side note: I don't get all the Demetrius Harris love unless you have a fetish for blocking and dropped passes from a TE. Dropped passes are clearly a weakness for Njoku but he is a far superior weapon. I would hope, YTown, in 2 TE sets, we are using Njoku and Devalve....at least on passing downs.