Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. RB Glenn Winston in a Browns uniform

RB Glenn Winston in a Browns uniform

The Browns Board
50 14 1.6k

  • I like keeping Crow as the change of pace over using west....... but Im really struggling to understand why sacrifice a spot for Winston over all the other needs??.....is he THAT good?....does having him outweigh having depth at wr or ol?....could be. .....

    I just read a recent interview with Pettine and he said we are committed to running the ball and, because of that, we could never have too many good backs....ok.....I guess I can understand that too.....

  • with our weather and tate prone to injury. it might bode well for us to keep Winston...Pettine seems to think that he has more talent than the ones in front of him...sounds to me like we dumping Tate at the end of the year and still have 3 backs worthy of starting and addressing other needs next offseason. IDK never had this in Cleveland before. but keeping him and drafting a top WR to go with Gordon, Hawkins, and Gabe next year. would be building a decent power house offense that suits our climate much better. then addressing the .lineman or defense...lol I feel good about our direction so far...getting giddy (somewhat) about our direction of our beloved browns..hence the "new" Brownie logo as my avatar lol

    cheers from the dawgpound

    Don't you wish you had taken the "Blue Pill"? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202829424159899&l=93ed4a6e53

  • by the way I am voting for this "new" Brownie the elf logo lol JK JK...well maybe not joking

    Don't you wish you had taken the "Blue Pill"? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202829424159899&l=93ed4a6e53
  • MudflyM Mudfly

    @tour2ma said:

    Dress all three of them. Deactivate Winston or...

    Can Crow play FB? Would have to be better than Ag at lead blocking in the zone plays.

    So, this is really kind of a tricky problem? we have here......too many good backs.....

    It's just not practical to carry 5 RB's.......but, if we try to move one to PS, he is sure to get nabbed.....and if we keep em all, we are burning valuable roster spots, just to hold players we might need someday.....

    Can't cut rookies who are on fire and look like the future.....

    Can't cut the proven star you just signed.....

    Sooooooooooo.....what to do, what to do.....

    I say......work Tate hard for the next few games.....let him rack up some serious yards......then investigate trading him....we didn't give up anything to get him and he might bring us some much needed help somewhere else.....

    Just an idea.....

    @mudfly said:

    I say......work Tate hard for the next few games.....let him rack up some serious yards......then investigate trading him....we didn't give up anything to get him and he might bring us some much needed help somewhere else.....

    Just an idea.....

    @mudfly said:

    I like keeping Crow as the change of pace over using west.......

    I agree with Z... I don't trade our one vet. Plus I still think Tate is our best all-around RB.

    Of our 3 top backs Tate and West are the two that are most alike.

    Crow is pushing past West for the #2 spot, mostly due to performance, but in part due to the above.

    Why not entertain offers for West?

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
    👍
  • Tour2maT Tour2ma

    @mudfly said:

    I say......work Tate hard for the next few games.....let him rack up some serious yards......then investigate trading him....we didn't give up anything to get him and he might bring us some much needed help somewhere else.....

    Just an idea.....

    @mudfly said:

    I like keeping Crow as the change of pace over using west.......

    I agree with Z... I don't trade our one vet. Plus I still think Tate is our best all-around RB.

    Of our 3 top backs Tate and West are the two that are most alike.

    Crow is pushing past West for the #2 spot, mostly due to performance, but in part due to the above.

    Why not entertain offers for West?

    @tour2ma said:

    I agree with Z... I don't trade our one vet. Plus I still think Tate is our best all-around RB.

    Of our 3 top backs Tate and West are the two that are most alike.

    Crow is pushing past West for the #2 spot, mostly due to performance, but in part due to the above.

    Why not entertain offers for West?

    Im open to all ideas.....really, it's the "mystery" of Winston that has me doing all the thinking about trades and such.....Im assuming there is something special there, because we shouldn't be giving up that valuable roster spot for a developmental player(especially at our strongest position)....obviously they think he can help the team more than players like Burleson, Gilkey, etc....

    And, though I know Tate looks like the best back overall, Id think his injury history would be the reason we choose to let him go, over West that is...maybe more upside and reliability with west.....BUT, West could also bring the highest price......any chance he's worth more than we paid??......a 2nd?

    Finally(and conversely).....after hearing Pettine AND reading all your replies.....and sleeping on it......I definitely CAN see the benefit of keeping a full stable and just being a great cold weather-smash mouth football team.....if one back goes down, bring in the next and keep SMASHING!!!!......these guys WILL look pretty freaking good in december, when the other teams D's are injured, tired and wearing down...

  • So, we have an injury prone vet, plus two good rookies that have been able to pick up the slack while the vet's injured. And we're thinking of trading one, because we have someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL?

    Probably not.

    Tour2maT MudflyM 2 Replies
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    So, we have an injury prone vet, plus two good rookies that have been able to pick up the slack while the vet's injured. And we're thinking of trading one, because we have someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL?

    Probably not.

    @gftchris said:

    So, we have an injury prone vet, plus two good rookies that have been able to pick up the slack while the vet's injured. And we're thinking of trading one, because we have someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL?

    Probably not.

    Probably not a reality... but why not speculate?

    There are three good rookies, one of whom was 53-man roster worthy and might not make it to the PS, yet cannot get on the field. If he is good, we ought to be able to safely trade one RB.

    "When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
  • gftChrisG gftChris

    So, we have an injury prone vet, plus two good rookies that have been able to pick up the slack while the vet's injured. And we're thinking of trading one, because we have someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL?

    Probably not.

    @gftchris said:

    So, we have an injury prone vet, plus two good rookies that have been able to pick up the slack while the vet's injured. And we're thinking of trading one, because we have someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL?

    Probably not.

    No, maybe my question is getting lost in the trade thoughts.....it is "why 5 RB's at all?".....who does that?....if we have a proven vet, plus 2 more good rookies to pick up the slack, then why use a roster spot for someone who hasn't played a down in the NFL, when we have so many other holes??

    Im not so much advocating or promoting a trade, as much as asking if Winston is so good that he's worth a roster spot rather than being on the ps?...or more valuable to the team than another receiver or tackle or guard would be....??

    And "IF" he is....if he's THAT good......THEN wouldn't a trade make sense?....and if he's NOT that good, then why the roster spot?

    edit: ....and if we need to carry an extra back just because Tate is injury prone, to me, that is not good.....

    who knows, maybe after Tate plays and proves he's back, they'll make a move.....

  • We don't have 5 RBs? Unless you're counting Agnew, I guess.

  • Yes, I counted Agnew....so, 4 rb's and a fb.....

  • I don't know, I think with Tate's durability issues you are in the perfect situation with the guys you have now.

    The running back position is secure and you can use Tate as much as you want or need without worrying about pushing him to hard because you have good starting caliber options behind him.

    It would be great to flip one of them out for a starting caliber WR, but I don't see anybody giving up that kind of player for either a 3rd round running back or an undrafted one. If you drop any of them the the PS they will be picked up by somebody. Hopefully one of them can help pick up the slack on special teams.

Log in to reply