DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Expectations for Nick

I believe everything is nothing but pure conjecture and guesswork at this point in time. I mean I understand why people do that because he's a very big cog in the wheel. But when someone writes an article and the very beginning of the title is "Things I Think I Know" sort of speaks for itself.

I think he gets back, but not at the level he was by a pretty large margin. Maybe another year or two and he hangs it up. Sucks because he's been so dependable since we drafted him but the nature of the injuries, the position he plays, and this being the second time on same knee.. going to be tough. I think If you're the Browns, you find his replacement this year in the draft and if he comes back good as ever, great, then you have two good backs and you can keep the workload split

No expectations, but immense hope.

Knee injuries of this type normally take 2 years to fully heal.

That said, I am looking forward to seeing him on the field again.

It’ll be tough but if anyone can do it, Chubb can. I’m glad they restructured to keep him a Brown, and I look forward to his return in 2024.

I have no expectations.

No expectations. Just get healthy and be well Nick. That’s the most important thing as far as i’m concerned.

I wouldn’t say NO expectations except that I assume he won’t be 100% old Nick. If he’s 95%, he’s still among the very best runners in the league. The way this writer describes his return is about exactly how I’d expect it to go. If I were coach I’d be all about easing him in slowly. The real worry for me is defenders going after the knee. I’m still mad that everyone just shrugged off how Pitt went low on him all game until they finally got him and everyone was like “welp, that’s football”. If he indeed looks like old Nick, I’d expect Pitt and Balt to start taking knee shots again.

I expect him to be dominant. If he isnt then one of our other RBs will need to step up.

Super Bowl Champion

Yet it is just football. It was a legal hit. One we see several times on a weekly basis in the NFL. I didn't like it and it being legal isn't something I agree with but that's the reality of it.

I disagree with this. You don’t see players blatantly go at a guy's knees very often.

Nick was wearing them out like he does every team. Fitzpatrick made a dirty play and is heralded as a guy who was just playing football. It’s a weird take.

If this was a run of the mill play with it happening multiple times every game every week you’d see more horrific injuries like Chubb’s. You just don’t.

I’ll agree it’s football and definitely an expected outcome just from playing, but it was dirty and definitely not routine.

I just have a hard time calling a legal tackle a "dirty". I don't like that those are legal hits. But they are. For me to consider something as being dirty a player must somehow be braking the rules of the game. A legal hit by any definition is a clean hit.

Yep. It's a play that's not dirty until it's dirty.

He's launching towards a space in hopes to have impact on a play. He's a projectile, not a tackler. It crosses reckless abandon and breeches egregious.

All those that want to just say "that's football" we'll have to agree to disagree.


Especially since this comes from a team that is coached to play this way... They play with reckless abandon, and make dirty, egregious plays all the time in 'and goal' situations. First and goal, your QB drops back? He's not getting sacked, he's having his head removed. Why? Because it's a 1-4 yard penalty at most.

I've watched it for years, would love to see some advanced stats but won't seek them out on my own -- I don't need to.

I agree. Roughing the passer is a dirty play because it's against the rules of the game. Thus the penalty.

Are you following what I'm saying though? I'd rather not argue whether you think the following is true... you can be like "nah" while I'm foaming at the mouth, that part is not important...

Certain teams play a certain way, and are coached to do so when certain situations dictate. In 'and goal' situations, Pittsburgh plays "dirty" (my opinion). I'm not arguing for a flag against Stinkpatrick.

You say it's not "dirty" because it isn't even a play that would be penalized. I can't argue, but I definitely see it different.

I remember when a certain thing became prevalent in the NBA. Defenders would invade the foot space of shooters when they were in the air -- shooter would land on defenders foot and twist their ankle. When it was 'legal', nobody called it dirty. Once it was outlawed, everyone called it dirty. My contention was that it was dirty all along, many people just refused to call it that because it was within the rules.

I don't disagree with you that's there's two ways of looking at this. But as for myself I have to consider that the rules of tacking, making many things illegal in that department and an increase at limiting the type of tackles that are against the rules, such low tackles as the one Fitzpatrick made on Chubb have been discussed by the league in great detail. As for myself I would coach a team be play as aggressive and attacking as possible within the confines of the rules. You can't tackle people high anymore and trying to wrap Chubb up above the waste has been proven to be nearly impossible. So that leaves very little room with effective ways to bring him down.

So for me yes, if you're playing within the confines of the rules it's not dirty. If and when it becomes a rule not to hit at the knee and ankle level and you break the rule it's a dirty hit. For me to define something there has to be a point of reference with which I use to draw a conclusion. Something tangible to make such a determination. My point of reference is the NFL rule book.

As I said, I understand that everyone does not share that view.

Just had my quad repaired, if Chubb can’t go, I’ll sign up for the job… but I want a Watson contract, where the team pays me a truckload of Benjamins to sit or play poorly. I’d be good with that. Real good. But I’d pity Browns fans.

"You'll get nothing and like it"

I have zero data to back this up (lazy) but I’ve been watching Browns/Steelers for 45yrs, watching Browns/Ravens for 25yrs, it’s always nagging at me when they play that we’re just much more likely to have catastrophic injuries during those games. Especially the Steelers. They play right up to what they can get away with and cause an injury. They choose players that are naturals that way. Harrison, Ward, Farrior, Polamalu, etc. I’m not saying Fitzpatrick was coached on that specific play to dive at his knees but perhaps a murmur among among the D and coaches during the week that when he’s barreling at you, you do what you need to do. It’d be a real shame if they lost their best player at a key moment, just sayin’. If it costs 15 yards, hey that’s football.
If we’re being honest, I wish we returned the favor most years. Just send an NHL style message to think hard before opening that can. Apart from Garret’s little helmet fitting assist, I feel like we play the Millhouse to their Nelson most years.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39949719/vikings-tj-hockenson-says-nfl-needs-look-low-hits

I wasn't really in agreement with the 'dirty hit' angle, but Fate's post about dirty hits being legal until they're not got me thinking more about it... and then I read this article. There's a decent amount of tidbits of info to unpack from that article. Both players were bigger (tight ends) getting hit by DBs (who tend to be smaller). Going high on a bigger guy is a recipe to get trucked, not to mention the risk of getting flagged for a hit to head (which is tough because running and cutting usually means they have a pretty good knee-bend and/or lean going.

I was surprised to hear the snippet from Dan Campbell. I know he's intense and everything, but I never took him for a coach that would advocate for dangerous hits. He says he coaches his defenders to aim for the 'thigh board'... which surprised me. I would think that's way too low, but I also never played football (played hockey and with checking you want to be low but not too low).

Food for thought.

Good article.

Part of the unpacking goes down a road that (strangely) contrasts the NBA to the NFL again. The "brotherhood" aspect. It's valuable because we can't just create an endless amount of subjective penalties.

The NBA seems to have a much stronger fellowship. And much more vocal leaders when certain 'trusts' are breached. They will call out their own. Sometimes it's subtle: "we all want to stay healthy and play for as long as we can"; sometimes more direct: "there's no room for that in the game, I hope that wasn't intentional". A lot of times that's directed towards a rookie / young player, a lot of times that young player is apologizing the next day and has probably learned a valuable lesson.

I feel like I've watched an uptick (to be modest) of 'dives' at players' knees. No stats, but much like 10yr, I've been watching long enough to know. I DO know that the shrugging excuse is always "well, we can't go high". I feel like a lot of nodding to that line has allowed a lot of bad excuses for what I consider egregious plays.


And again, much like 10yr in his post above, I watch the Steelers do it like clockwork. I watched a few of their games down the stretch against other opponents -- same old, same old.

So let's assume I'm right, and there is a pattern... Is it wrong to coach your players to play with more reckless abandon, not be afraid of penalties on 1st and goal from the 2? If we're talking about mugging a WR in the end zone to prevent a sure TD, hell no. If we're talking about diving at players, taking the top off a QB "because it's only a 1yd penalty", well, that's when we enter a huge gray area imo.

The argument about the lesser penalties near the goal line is a great point. I hadn't thought about that and even though it's an assumption on your part I do think it falls well within the "do whatever you can to win" type of thing we see from NFL teams/players.

In an off-season where the hip-drop tackle was banned, I don't see why we can't also ban diving at players' knees. Right?

I'm still curious about the quote from/about Dan Campbell and "aim for the thighboard". Wonder if any folks who have played at higher levels would agree/argue that one.

What I can tell you is with two bodies flying around at such a high speed and often times not in a straight line, where you are aiming for doesn't mean that's where the contact will occur.

Agreed, and we see low hits on ball carriers all the time. Harrison was a dirty player, but I don’t think Minkah meant to hurt Chubb. It’s football, a contact sport played at high speed with fractions of a second to make a decision/move.
Guy get hurt.

I'm not sure that there's "less" of a fellowship in the NFL... I just imagine that it's gotta be different given how much more aggression is involved in playing football.

Fair take, can't argue.

Everything sounds different to me when even teammates can call each other out though. Alas, I'm armed with little info, I just remember a Cav calling out a young Cav a couple years ago. Durant calling out Bozo, and a couple other instances.

I think part of the issue is the persistent "NFL careers are short anyway" mentality that dilutes aggressive play that crosses into gray areas.