MERGED: For once and for all Brown no backup... | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

MERGED: For once and for all Brown no backup...

Buddwalk said:
Actually brown was a backup sorry man...i love brown to death...but caddy had better field vision and better moves...But Caddy wasnt a better back then brown...there even in my book
Click to expand...

still pretending you watched him play a game?
 
godfater21 said:
No, a back-up is a secondary player at a position. When a player gets more reps at RB than another he is a starter, and the one who gets less is a back-up.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making stuff up. Go look up the word backup in a dictionary. If Brown was a backup then why did he get the first carry of the last game Auburn played last season?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=250030259

A backup does NOT carry the ball on the first play with the "starter" getting it the next play. For the 1,000,000th time Ronnie Brown was NOT the backup.
 
godfater21 said:
No, a back-up is a secondary player at a position. When a player gets more reps at RB than another he is a starter, and the one who gets less is a back-up.
Click to expand...

Actually whoever starts at the position first in a game is the starter since you want to sit here and argue technicalities.
 
kastofsna120 said:
brown wasn't a backup. cadillac was the "starter" only by technicality. cadillac ran the majority of the time and came out whenever something needed to be done that brown did better, i.e. catching the ball out of the backfield, splitting out, blocking, etc. brown obviously can carry the ball as well as cadillac, and probably better. if brown started, what would cadillac do? brown would just run and catch and block, and cadillac would only come in when brown needed a breather. it just made more sense from a tactical standpoint for cadillac to "start" over brown. in reality, there was no true starter, they split carries.
Click to expand...

Yes, Brown was more versitile than Caddy. So yes it did make sense to play them both. But every team has to have a starter at every position. and Caddy was the starting RB.
 
this is getting stupid. im sure we can all agree on one thing, and that RB is gonna be a hell of a runningback. now can we stop this nonsense?
 
MelbournePhin said:
this is getting stupid. im sure we can all agree on one thing, and that RB is gonna be a hell of a runningback. now can we stop this nonsense?
Click to expand...

I'll agree i think he should be pretty good.
 
i see no point of threads where fellow fin fans start bashing e/other. I learned the hard way with a 48 hr. ban
 
godfater21 said:
Yes, Brown was more versitile than Caddy. So yes it did make sense to play them both. But every team has to have a starter at every position. and Caddy was the starting RB.
Click to expand...
you're splitting hairs at this point...why does it matter if he was starting on such a technical meaningless basis?
 
bakedmatt said:
i don't care to get involved in all this bull****, but what do reporters know?
Click to expand...



Ronnie Brown's football résumé was not distinguished at Auburn. He started only 21 of 47 games and was the featured ball carrier only when someone else was injured. In three of his four seasons he failed to run for more than 1,000 yards, and in two of them he didn't even reach 450. He was not a finalist for the Doak Walker Award, presented annually to the nation's top collegiate running back, and the best he could on the All-SEC squad as a senior was second team.


Started 21 of 47 games, only the featured ball carrier when someone was injured.

Reporter or not those are stats. you can't argue with that. I'm sure you people will so tell how those stats are wrong. i don't care if brown was more versitile that is not what the topic is. topic is Ronnie was not caddies back-up. the stats show it other wise.
 
kastofsna120 said:
you're splitting hairs at this point...why does it matter if he was starting on such a technical meaningless basis?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter to you that he wasn't a back-up? i don't care that he was a back-up but at least i can admit it.
 
godfater21 said:
Ronnie Brown's football résumé was not distinguished at Auburn. He started only 21 of 47 games and was the featured ball carrier only when someone else was injured. In three of his four seasons he failed to run for more than 1,000 yards, and in two of them he didn't even reach 450. He was not a finalist for the Doak Walker Award, presented annually to the nation's top collegiate running back, and the best he could on the All-SEC squad as a senior was second team.


Started 21 of 47 games, only the featured ball carrier when someone was injured.

Reporter or not those are stats. you can't argue with that. I'm sure you people will so tell how those stats are wrong. i don't care if brown was more versitile that is not what the topic is. topic is Ronnie was not caddies back-up. the stats show it other wise.
Click to expand...


that isn't the issue people are trying to argue over. it doesn't matter to them if the stat book has as many G's as GS's under his name. it also doesn't matter to them if he started at RB or FB, and i don't see why it should. technicalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom