|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Just saw this in Tony's Q&A Article http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2011/03/is_there_a_place_for_lawrence.html Quote:
Hey, Tony: What's Lawrence Vickers' status? Why haven't the Browns tendered him? Or have they already? -- Terry Carbetta, Ashland
Hey, Terry: The Browns have not confirmed any of their tenders -- just the players they signed to new contracts. There is no sign that Vickers has been tendered. I believe the Browns are parting ways with him and plan to use Peyton Hillis as the fullback in the West Coast offense.
So Peyton Hillis would be FB in our offense? Are you kidding me? May be on some Pro Set formations, but why would we move a guy who was our best option last year to FB?
This would really annoy me. Hillis is a RB, and he's a good one. With a better passing game and another good linemen, Hillis could have an even bigger year. His problem ended up being that everyone stacked the box on him. We honestly needed a Braylon Edwards-esque player (someone who could stretch the field vertically, not necessarily always getting deep throws, but enough of a threat so that they need safety help over the top).
Hillis should be good as a RB in the WCO. He can catch the ball, and he can run it inside or outside. Sure, he's not the fastest, but he works hard and falls forward. With more experience he'll probably fumble the ball less too.
My impression of a FB is a guy who blocks a lot (on running plays and often on passing). Hillis could play FB, but he's still our best RB. It makes very little sense to stop utilizing him. May be we could use a guy who's a better pass catcher at FB than Vickers, but Hillis is too valuable to be put at FB.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
Because he can run from FB, as well as being a terrific receiving threat.
I wouldn't worry a great deal about it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
if hes a fullback like Kevin Mack im in...maybe our 2 RB system will involve splitting carries between our FB and RB...maybe we could revolutionize the new NFL offense with it?
thatd be terrific if we re-introduced the ball carrying fullback to the nfl...imagine our thoughts of the pro set...but instead just handing it to the fullback
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
except when we dont have a season and hillis, hardesty and anyone else receive 0 carries
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
I imagine their plan is to use Hillis and Hardesty at the same time and with Hillis having actually been a FB for the majority of his career it makes sense to put him there if they plan to have them both on the field with one another. I am guessing it would be more of a hybrid FB role and not a true FB role, more pass catching than lead blocking.
What I don't understand is, if they plan to do this, why does this mean they can't keep Vickers also? Its not like FB's are an expensive luxury, the guy made beans compared to our 3rd string offensive lineman and he's the best lead blocker in the business. Even if we use him part time he's still worth his full salary.
And its not like it would be unprecedented to use a true FB in a WCO, see Mack Strong leading the way for Shaun Alexander in his prime years. Worked pretty damn well out there.
Not sure what the line of thinking is on this issue. It can't be money related, we just shed a ton of salary and we've paid him a total of $3.5 million over the course of his career, that's Jon St. Clair's salary for one freaking year.
I'm having trouble finding a reason we can't find some use for him. Do we not plan to ever be in 3rd and short or on the goal line?
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
Remember, this is coming from Grossi who is known for stirring the pot..
Let's see how it settles out..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,440 |
Quote:
My impression of a FB is a guy who blocks a lot (on running plays and often on passing). Hillis could play FB, but he's still our best RB. It makes very little sense to stop utilizing him. May be we could use a guy who's a better pass catcher at FB than Vickers, but Hillis is too valuable to be put at FB.
Because what you describe is not a FB in the WCO. There are many ways to use a FB and in the offense MH ran in GB the FB was used as much as the HB. This would be a great move and exactly how I would use him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
He could be listed as FB. But dont let labels fool you. As a FB he would get more catches, carries than any other FB in the league.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
Also, Heckert has said, on numerous occassions, that the team wants an excellent receiver at FB. Vickers, despite what so many try to tell me, is not an excellent receiver. He drops as many as he catches, and he doesn't catch that many to start with.
In a Mangini style, blow 'em up with the running game rushing attack, he's perfect. In the "Eagles style WCO", not so much.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
Quote:
Also, Heckert has said, on numerous occassions, that the team wants an excellent receiver at FB. Vickers, despite what so many try to tell me, is not an excellent receiver. He drops as many as he catches, and he doesn't catch that many to start with.
In a Mangini style, blow 'em up with the running game rushing attack, he's perfect. In the "Eagles style WCO", not so much.
For his career he's had 41 receptions for 271 yards and 6.6 Average with 3 TDs and only 1 fumble.
For a FB in a mangini style offense, I don't think that's horrible. that's over 5 years.
But looking at another FB in the WCO, Tom Rathman. His stats were more like it I think.
320 receptions for 2,684 yards and a 8.4 average and 8 TD's with 3 fumbles. that's over 9 years.
Rathman averaged 35 receptions a year whereas Vickers was about 8,5 per year.
But to be fair, no way we've thrown to Vickers nearly as much as they threw to Rathman..
If they plan on using Hillis more in the mold of Rathman, then he's going to be a lot of fun to watch.
But I only see that happening if we have another RB that can carry the load.
Is that Hardesty or someone else?
But again, this starts with Grossi.. so as of this moment, I wouldn't read all that much into it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
I think there's a relatively large misconception as to what all happens in the WCO. There are many different varieties and the scheme is often altered to fit the personnel. Last year Shurmur's FB, Mike Karney, had only 6 rushes and 5 receptions. In 2009, he only had 2 rushes and 6 catches.
Holmgren's FB in Seattle was Mack Strong who averaged 16 rushes and and 16 catches per season. Both Strong and Karney were/are better blockers than runners and receivers.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillis at FB next year, but he will play RB plenty, and Vickers will see his share of playing time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
Did we tender Vickers at all?
I would also add that I saw a few quick interviews with Vickers after Mangini was fired, and Vickers came across as a very Pro-Mangini type guy ..... with comments like "We just lost our leader today", and such.
If he wasn't tendered, I have to wonder if comments like that didn;t come into play.
Last edited by YTownBrownsFan; 03/13/11 01:20 PM.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
If so the team nor Vickers is saying we did. Considering the fact that every other player we tendered "leaked" to the press that they had been tendered, I am inclined to believe Vickers wasn't, and will no longer be a Brown. I think the truth of the matter is the FO is very high on Hardesty, and plan on making him our feature back so they have to find a place to play Hillis who is too good to not see the field. Thus you will see Hardesty at RB and Hillis at FB most of the game, and Hillis will also see about 10/15 plays at HB when Hardesty comes out..........jmho.
Against logic,the most effective armor is willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,850 |
j/c..
By all means Vickers earns a spot on this roster, and not only earn it, but deserves it. It would be a huge mistake to let Vickers go. He has been a huge factor with Jamal Lewis, Jerome Harrison, Peyton Hillis, and anyone else who lines up at RB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,468 |
Many ways to use the Fullback ? Oh no.. not more Fullback option passes... 
The Cleveland Browns - WE KNOW QUARTERBACKS ( Look at how many we've had ... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
I am inclined to believe Vickers wasn't, and will no longer be a Brown.
I'm thinking that this will be the case as well. To me this indicates that, whenever we have a season again, Hillis will be taking all the hits that so many fear will shorten his NFL lifespan, only he'll be doing it without the ball in his hands nearly as much. I just hope we don't give him the same silent treatment that McDaniels did in Denver.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
Quote:
I believe the Browns are parting ways with him and plan to use Peyton Hillis as the fullback in the West Coast offense.
Why does he believe this? He gives no evidence as to why he does. No interview with Shurmur, Holmgren, Heckert, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I believe in their commitment to quality, that the PD is parting ways with Tony and plan to use [insert any name] as the new sports writer in his position.
I have no facts, sources, or information regarding that belief at this time...
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Just like on here if he says, "I believe", then it's his opinion. He doesn't need to cite sources or interviews to back up his opinion. That's the purpose of him saying "I believe". He didn't say it's happening. He just said he believes it will shake out that way.
The reason I say this is because when I write things on here if I'm only stating an opinion I say "I believe" so that hopefully it's not misunderstood as me stating a fact without a backup link or source.
Personally I don't have a problem with Grossi stating his opinion so long as he states it that way. In fact, I find it very likely that we will use Hillis as our full back since he is the better running fullback and the better pass catching fullback and Vickers would be worth too much money on the open market to try and keep him as a backup for that price.
As much as I love Vickers I'm not sure we can comfortably feel we can afford him since he'll likely be the backup to Hillis.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
b/c of the CBA situation we will have less of an idea where the FO is headed in regards to personnel that normal.
It's my opinion that Vickers may not fit into the new offensive scheme b/c he is one dimensonal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Vickers has two years of stats on ESPN from his time at Colorado. Seems he was used pretty effectively as a receiver AND as a runner. IIRC, he had to work to develop that one dimension (blocking, I'm assuming) when he got to the NFL. Code:
YEAR ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
2004 63 252 4.0 26 2 28 290 10.4 34 0 0 0
2005 73 258 3.5 20 9 26 152 5.8 27 2 0 0
I think ditching Vickers and putting Hillis at FB is making us worse at two positions, and I really hope that's not the plan moving forward.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674 |
Vickers has all sorts on NFL stats....more than college stats for that matter.
What he did in college is meaningless.
Again....don't get hung up on what the position is going to be called. It's a 2 back set. Forget the idea the tailback runs and the fullback blocks.
If Hillis is now going to be called a fullback, how much you want to bet we'll have a fullback who gets a lot of carries??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
I think that, idealy, these guys will be used as HB/FB somewhat like Mack and Byner were.
Everybody remembers that first year they were paired together, where each broke 1000 yards on the ground .... but what people forget is that they also combined for almost 800 yards receiving.
I could easily see Hillis at FB in a 2 back set ....... and at HB in other 2 back, and single back sets. I could see Hardesty (if healthy, and everything we hope he is) used as HB in a 2 back set, and some single back as well.
I wouldn't get to riled up over the position titles. I suspect that Mr Hillis will see a lot of touches.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Well, as much as I know it overjoys you that we're no longer wasting a spot on the field with Vickers, I'm concerned mainly with how this will affect Hillis' production. Most Browns fans agree that Vickers had a lot to do with the success of Hillis last year and Harrison the year before. Hillis was very effective building up a head of steam last year with Vickers keeping him clean until the LOS. I'm hoping that our scheme can somehow cover up for the lack of lead blocking that Vickers provided over the past couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
Vickers doesn't fit the new scheme...........pretty simple. Hillis will still get about 20 touches a game via the run and pass. The difference is Hardesty (hopefully) will also get 20/25 touches.
So if you still want Hillis to get 30+ touches a game then your going to be disappointed. If your like most people who thought we overused PH last year then this should be right up your alley.
Against logic,the most effective armor is willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993 |
If we envision a situation where we could be 4th and short, then vickers has a place in our scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993 |
I haven't gotten even close to considering Hardesty for next year. I hope I'm wrong but that guy just seems like glass to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Vickers has all sorts on NFL stats....more than college stats for that matter.
What he did in college is meaningless.
Again....don't get hung up on what the position is going to be called. It's a 2 back set. Forget the idea the tailback runs and the fullback blocks.
If Hillis is now going to be called a fullback, how much you want to bet we'll have a fullback who gets a lot of carries??
 Good concept,...the idea is to create confusion of the "D."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
If we envision a situation where we could be 4th and short, then vickers has a place in our scheme.
or 3rd and short...heck, even 2nd and short (setting up a playfake bomb to AJ Green perhaps?)
also, let us not forget that Vickers is our best return blocker as well. he definitely is one of our best 53 football players, so he should have a spot on our roster. maybe we have more 2-back sets with Hillis lining up at FB (ala Tom Rathman), but that doesn't mean we should just let Vickers go.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
If we envision a situation where we could be 4th and short, then vickers has a place in our scheme.
or 3rd and short...heck, even 2nd and short (setting up a playfake bomb to AJ Green perhaps?)
also, let us not forget that Vickers is our best return blocker as well. he definitely is one of our best 53 football players, so he should have a spot on our roster. maybe we have more 2-back sets with Hillis lining up at FB (ala Tom Rathman), but that doesn't mean we should just let Vickers go.
This also often gets discharged right out the exhaust stack as blow-by.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Quote:
Quote:
If we envision a situation where we could be 4th and short, then vickers has a place in our scheme.
or 3rd and short...heck, even 2nd and short (setting up a playfake bomb to AJ Green perhaps?)
also, let us not forget that Vickers is our best return blocker as well. he definitely is one of our best 53 football players, so he should have a spot on our roster. maybe we have more 2-back sets with Hillis lining up at FB (ala Tom Rathman), but that doesn't mean we should just let Vickers go.
Exactly! Also to add, fullbacks are not expensive. We paid St. Clair as much last year than we've paid Vickers in his entire career. I'd have almost rather put Vickers at RT than trot St. Clair out there again...
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
Loki,
How did you get a copy of Mo Carthon's playbook?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 765 |
Maybe the Holmgren is thinking Hillis=Tom Rathman?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
He also might be thinking that Hillis one on one with a DB could be pretty exciting ..... and brutal.  lol With Hillis' running style, I wouldn't mind seeing him hitting DBs part of the time, rather than LB/DL.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,674 |
Quote:
Maybe the Holmgren is thinking Hillis=Tom Rathman?
I am thinking more like Mike Alstott. Rathman didn't carry the ball all that much.
I don't remember how many receptions a season Rathman had, but Hillis caught 60 balls last year.
A quick check show Rathman caught 73 balls in 1989. His next highest total is 48 in 1990.
His season high in rushing was 427 yards with a career total on 2020.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 605
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 605 |
Quote:
He also might be thinking that Hillis one on one with a DB could be pretty exciting ..... and brutal. lol With Hillis' running style, I wouldn't mind seeing him hitting DBs part of the time, rather than LB/DL.
But then the NFL will change the rules to protect the DB's because Hillis is too physical. Of course this will be after fining Hillis for hitting DB's that arent' able to protect themselves. 
"He who buys what he does not need steals from himself."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Peyton Hillis to FB? This could be
the case according to Grossi
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
