FO's Bill Barnwell on Jerome Harrison
For all of us Jerome Harrison backers of the past few years, here's a nice vindicating summary of our beliefs.
2 months ago
rolub
42 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Running for 200 yards doesn’t automatically mean that you’re an elite running back, though. Willie Ellison set a then-NFL record by running for 247 yards in one game in 1971, but that was his only 1,000-yard season, and he needed every one of those yards to even get there. LeShon Johnson ran for 214 yards against the Saints in 1996, but only spread 741 rushing yards over his other 61 career games. Barry Word, Derrick Ward, Charlie Garner, and Frenchy Fuqua each had 200-yard games in their career. None were great, although they all had great days.
This.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 1:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is what you came away with after reading that article?.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 22, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when people are set in their ways, they read what they want to read.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s called being a realist. If he continues to perform, then yeah, I’ll buy in. But until I see it, he’s the halfback equivalent of Flipper Anderson.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the main point of the article is that Harrison has been performing this entire time, but because he hasn’t been given equivalent carries of a feature back, his counting stats don’t match up to the elite.
i’m not predicting that he’s going to be the next Emmit Smith or Frank Gore, but as FO has been pounding the table for this guy for a couple years, his breakout performance is his introduction to the mainstream, and vindication to FO’s support for him.
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Dec 22, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
copy-pasted from the article’s comment section:
He did a lot with his touches the past 2 years, but this year Harrison hadn’t shown much: -20.6% rushing DVOA on 88 carries, worse than either Lewis (-12.2%) or Jennings (-4.6%), and a -16.4% receiving DVOA on 45 passes. And including his rookie season, he was down to about a 0% rushing DVOA for his career (59 DYAR on 165 carries). This one game will bring his career DVOA up to around 13% (which can happen when you get as many carries in the game as you had all of last season).
by notthatnoise on Dec 24, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Truthfully though, if you look at his YPA last year, it made you wonder why he wasn’t given more touches.
I made a point last year (I know you weren’t around then), but if a guy is averaging above 9 yards per touch, you give him the ball until that average is somewhat more normal. Harrison has been badly underutilized even if you assume his blocking is among the worst for a running back in the NFL.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that you do give him carries if he won’t pass block.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 22, 2009 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I read some posts and articles that questioned his ability to pick up the blitz, but not his willingness.
I still wonder how that works. He’s been blocking for Cribbs on returns for at least a couple of years now. Is the difference between blocking on the returns and blocking out of the backfield a matter of reads and field of vision?
by JustBob on Dec 22, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“This” as in this is way you want Harrison to turn out, like one of those guys mentioned above? Do you not like this man?
You can call it being a “realist” but you contradict that by not calling it what it really is, pessimism.
I’m tired of people trying to take this accomplishment away from Harrison, or overshadow it by shouting “You’re still no good!” Ok, it’s one thing to here that from Steeler fans, and other teams, but c’mon, when it’s just irritating. The man is you’re favorite NFL teams RB and he just made into the top 3 single games of all time, and you still not only fail to support him but claim he’s no good, and will be no good.
He has some great potential, this and other games are absolute proof of that. Why do you chose to say he’ll be like the men mentioned above and fail to be great? Is that what you want to happen?
by Simmsinns on Dec 23, 2009 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"This" as in this is way you want Harrison to turn out, like one of those guys mentioned above? Do you not like this man?
Yes. I hate James Harrison and the Browns and I hope they both fail. I am secretly a Steelers fan. And a Holocaust denier. And I kick puppies.
You can call it being a "realist" but you contradict that by not calling it what it really is, pessimism.
I’m pretty sure that ‘contradict’ wasn’t the word you were looking for.
It’s pessimistic to have realistic expectations of an unproven yet promising back?
I’m tired of people trying to take this accomplishment away from Harrison, or overshadow it by shouting "You’re still no good!" Ok, it’s one thing to here that from Steeler fans, and other teams, but c’mon, when it’s just irritating. The man is you’re favorite NFL teams RB and he just made into the top 3 single games of all time, and you still not only fail to support him but claim he’s no good, and will be no good.
I’m not saying that he’s no good or will never be any good. I’m saying that he is unproven. One stellar performance against one of the worst teams with one of the worst run defenses in the league doesn’t make Harrison an elite back (or even an average back). He’s earned a closer look. That is all.
He has some great potential, this and other games are absolute proof of that. Why do you chose to say he’ll be like the men mentioned above and fail to be great? Is that what you want to happen?
He’s shown potential. I haven’t said otherwise. And again, I did not say that he’ll be like Flipper Anderson. I said that until he proves himself, he’s the halfback equivalent to Flipper Anderson. Not the same thing, and certainly not an indication that I want him to fail.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha. Jerome Harrison, of course.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 23, 2009 10:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One stellar performance against one of the worst teams with one of the worst run defenses in the league doesn’t make Harrison an elite back (or even an average back).
How many other players have ran for that many yards against KC this season?
In fact only Rice, Portis, M. Bush, and Buckhalter are the only RB’s to get 100 against the Chiefs.
MJD, LT twice, Mendenhall and Fred Jackson all were held under 100. Those are good RB’s that didn’t even get half of what Jerome Harrison did.
Yeah the Chiefs may suck, but no one has even come close to what Harrison did. In fact the only other back that is close is the non-human Chris Johnson (228 yards against JAX).
It’s pessimistic to have realistic expectations of an unproven yet promising back?
At what point is Harrison no longer unproven? He has 200 carries for 5.2 YPC and 55 catches for 8.5 YPC. Is it 300 carries?
I said that until he proves himself, he’s the halfback equivalent to Flipper Anderson
What pray tell, is this way of proving himself? Getting more yards than Jim Brown ever did in a single game is good enough for me.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 3:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How many other players have ran for that many yards against KC this season?
In fact only Rice, Portis, M. Bush, and Buckhalter are the only RB’s to get 100 against the Chiefs.
MJD, LT twice, Mendenhall and Fred Jackson all were held under 100. Those are good RB’s that didn’t even get half of what Jerome Harrison did.
Yeah the Chiefs may suck, but no one has even come close to what Harrison did. In fact the only other back that is close is the non-human Chris Johnson (228 yards against JAX).
Rushing totals against KC this year:
198, 67 93, 156, 150, 118, 135, 173, 182, 114, 94, 245, 200, 351
Let’s not pretend that KC has a stellar run defense. Of the players you mention, all were well above their season averages with the exception of LT who is merely an average back these days (yet still managed to score 2 TDs on 13 carries in their second meeting).
Buckhalter had 113 yards on 12 carries (9.4 yds/att), Portis had 109 yards on 15 carries (7.3 yds/att), and Bush had 119 yards on 14 carries (8.5 yds/att). So at least two backs have bested Harrison’s 8.4 yds/att vs. the Chiefs. How many yards does Buckhalter rack up with the 34 cracks Harrison had at KCs weaktit run D? 319.4, if his per carry average holds up.
At what point is Harrison no longer unproven? He has 200 carries for 5.2 YPC and 55 catches for 8.5 YPC. Is it 300 carries?
What pray tell, is this way of proving himself? Getting more yards than Jim Brown ever did in a single game is good enough for me.
50 carries a year proves nothing. If he sees a significant number of carries week in and week out next season, then this time next year we’ll know what we have.
Flipper Anderson had more receiving yards in a single game than Jerry Rice, therefore Flipper Anderson, from that moment on, was an elite wide receiver? Not in my book.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 24, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not pretend that KC has a stellar run defense
Never said they did, in fact I said that the Chiefs suck.
All I said is that no back has come close to doing what Harrison did against the Chiefs. No one has.
How many yards does Buckhalter rack up with the 34 cracks Harrison had at KCs weaktit run D? 319.4, if his per carry average holds up.
This is dumb. If we do this kind of thinking Jerome Harrison would have 1,459 yards this season (second in the NFL) if he was given as many carries as Steven Jackson this season.
50 carries a year proves nothing. If he sees a significant number of carries week in and week out next season, then this time next year we’ll know what we have.
Hopefully he has a coaching staff that allows him to get on the field.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All I said is that no back has come close to doing what Harrison did against the Chiefs. No one has.
Two teams have had 200+ yards against the Chiefs, and at least two players have had more yards per carry than Harrison.
This is dumb.
No dumber than thinking that a player who has one great game is all of a sudden an elite back.
Hopefully he has a coaching staff that allows him to get on the field.
There it is. He’s averaging a mere 50 carries a year because the coaching staff has it in for him. It couldn’t possibly be any fault of his own.
Absolutely absurd.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 24, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There it is. He’s averaging a mere 50 carries a year because the coaching staff has it in for him. It couldn’t possibly be any fault of his own.
Absolutely absurd.
Where did I say that they had it in for him?
Maybe this coaching staff is actually that stupid. Our offensive game planning has easily been amongst the NFL’s worst save for a week here and a week there.
Absurd is a coaching staff that can’t figure out a way to use Jerome Harrison.
The kid took the Bengals number three rush defense for 121 yards.
Every time he has gotten playing time he has made plays. So I ask you, why is it again that Harrison can’t get onto the field?
You keep telling me it is because he can’t block. Yet the two games in which he has recieved the most carries (Cinncy and KC) the Browns have given up a grand total of two sacks. Amazing that these two defenses were not able to get to the QB with the great turnstile that is Harrison back there.
In fact I would argue that Harrison’s running attack is actually a much better suppression of the pass rush than an above average pass blocking back. After all without Harrison we have almost zero run game to be afraid of at all.
So again, why can’t this coaching staff get Harrison on the field?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 24, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with all of this.
Are we to automatically assume that just because our clearly brilliant coaching staff doesn’t give Harrison enough playing time, that he is not capable?
by Simmsinns on Dec 24, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you can critique the playbook/gameplan, you can critique the player personnel. I don’t think anyone would argue against the former, so the latter is actually probable.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 25, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Coaches make poor personnel decisions. Romeo lived by them. The fact that a coach who wouldn’t dress the 36th pick in the draft can make them just as good as Romeo isn’t absurd. It’s actually the opposite.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 25, 2009 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Golan doesn’t like him because he was another in a long list of good-great Savage draft picks, pure and simple.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 25, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently Savage’s crew didn’t like him much either.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 25, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a terrible point, as I show below.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 26, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do we know think that Romeo and company were a good coaching staff?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 25, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point isn’t that Romeo was good, but that kwoog is saying that Golan doesn’t like Harrison because he was a Savage draft pick and since you responded, you as well mentioned how this coaching staff is bad for not playing Harrison.
My response was that Savage’s crew didn’t play Harrison much either. Why I don’t know. I’m just saying you can’t lay all the blame for Harrison not getting playing time on Mangini.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 25, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s very apparent Savage had strong differences with the way the players he picked were utilized. It’s (intentionally?) misleading to call the coaching staff “his crew”, when everyone knows that by the end he was so frustrated by their ineptness that he (inappropriately) said out of frustration to the media, “I just pick the players, I’m not the one who chooses who plays.”
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 26, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not misleading because they were his crew. If he didn’t like the way they utilized his players he should have done something about it. Did Romeo sign Lewis? Did Romeo resign Lewis?
It’s misleading to imply that Savage was wanting Harrison to start but it didn’t happen solely on the ineptitude of the coaching staff.
I have nothing against Savage nor do I have a grudge against the current regime, but from where I sit it seems you miss Savage so much that you’re willing to say whatever to disparage the current regime. That’s fine if that’s what you want to do, but point blank, it seems like your vision is cloudy and you are incapable of objectively critiquing the past team as well as the future team.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 26, 2009 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, opinions are like buttholes, so thanks for that. The fact is the lack of PT for Harrison was one of the main points of contention between Savage and the staff. I think it was in response to a question about Harrison that Savager originally made the “I don’t decide who plays” comment. So maybe you should change where you sit, because it’s not a very clear view.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 26, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Savage extended Romeo, did he not?
by Roger Dorn on Dec 28, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good call. Almost as good as trading away picks in next year’s draft for Beau bell and Martin Rucker.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Dec 28, 2009 8:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we spend the 52nd pick in the draft on a human hanger for a Browns sweatshirt on sundays, what good is the 150th pick?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 30, 2009 6:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the 36th pick on a third receiver at best. 3 2nd round picks is how teams go from worst to first (not by adding “depth” as some around here have argued). 2nd rounders should be starters, with most being above average starters. Missing on 2 of 3 has cost us much more than any 4 moves Savage ever made.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 30, 2009 6:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My view is that if Savage didn’t like the way Harrison was being played he could have made changes. He didn’t. He is just as culpable as Mangini, Romeo, etc.
Pretty witty with the butthole comment. Maybe next time you should spend your time thinking of a response to what has been said.
One baseball game, he came to the plate and heard a woman in the crowd shout to the pitcher, "I'll make you a chocolate cake if you strike out that 'so-and-so'!" Says Strong: "I hit that ball out of the park. Then I looked at her like, 'Do I get a cake now?' "
by Villeslgr on Dec 28, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, your view is demonstrably false. He didn’t have any control over playing time.
My comment wasn’t witty, it was dismissing your generalization of my opinions on Savage, instead of responding to what had been said about this specific issue.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 30, 2009 6:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m just saying you can’t lay all the blame for Harrison not getting playing time on Mangini.
I’m not. Romeo Crennel had a very odd way of how he played younger players. It was, as kwoog points out, a huge issue between him and Savage. Just because one foolish coaching staff makes a mistake, doesn’t excuse the second.
If you look at the situation it screams that Harrison obviously is being kept off the field for some reason. But the catch of it is, when he has been given a chance to do something on the stage that counts (an actual GAME), he has done pretty damn well for himself.
So it boils down to this for me. What is a greater possibility? The chance that Jerome Harrison has played his best two games the only chances he has gotten, or that he has played under two poor coaching staffs that have failed to use him in the best way possible?
Ye,s he could be Lee Suggs 2.0, but I just have a feeling that he has played under two very poor offensive coaching staffs.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was just coming over here to post this article. Hopefully they are right.
by Roger Dorn on Dec 22, 2009 3:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting reading, thanks rolub. I hope this performance gives Harrison an in toward more game time. He’s certainly earned that.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Dec 23, 2009 4:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Money quote, irrefutable:
Bad organizations, like the Browns, find what’s wrong with their players and use that as a reason to avoid giving them an opportunity. Good organizations look for a player’s strengths and find a way to use them effectively. Based on what Harrison did against the Chiefs on Sunday, it’s hard to make any argument against placing the Browns in the former category.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Dec 25, 2009 1:06 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Browns News/Information
Pro Football Critics
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Blogs
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities
The Watercooler
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Waiting for Next Year
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
