Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
User avatar
snitchinsider
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby snitchinsider » Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:00 am

Jules wrote:
Pine Tree wrote:
Ioverpayforrookies wrote: Crowell was the third RB to come into the game in week 7. He only got two carries and no targets in the first half; West got five carries and a catch in the first half, but was benched after failing to convert on 2nd and 2 and 3rd and 1 late in the second quarter.
*eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
Hopkins elitist.
Abdullah apologist.
Ajayi truther.
Bortles drum banger.

User avatar
49ersFaithful80
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1688
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby 49ersFaithful80 » Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:24 am

*eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
Dude wtf are you talking about?

So Coach Pettine essentially thought to himself "Well who cares about doing what will give my team the best chance of winning, I came out and said West would be active this week (nothing more than that) so I am morally obligated to give West more touches than Crowell."

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while, he made the decisions that he believed gave his team the best chance to win the game. That's how it works with coaches, they aren't worried about keeping hypothetical promises (that we have no idea if even happened) over winning.

He gave West more carries because he thought that gave them the best chance to win. Will he do the same this week? I have no idea, maybe his opinion has changed.

User avatar
snitchinsider
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby snitchinsider » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:22 am

49ersFaithful80 wrote:
*eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
Dude wtf are you talking about?

So Coach Pettine essentially thought to himself "Well who cares about doing what will give my team the best chance of winning, I came out and said West would be active this week (nothing more than that) so I am morally obligated to give West more touches than Crowell."

That is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while, he made the decisions that he believed gave his team the best chance to win the game. That's how it works with coaches, they aren't worried about keeping hypothetical promises (that we have no idea if even happened) over winning.

He gave West more carries because he thought that gave them the best chance to win. Will he do the same this week? I have no idea, maybe his opinion has changed.
In this post you pretend politics and player emotions don't exist, and don't play a role in football.

It was quite clear what was said, and it was quite clear what was to be expected as a result. A coach can't come out and say if you practice hard this week you'll play, and then clarify that he'll be "true to his word" about that promise, and then not deliver. We're not talking about a starter here, we're talking about a change of pace rookie back that had his confidence destroyed, a player that they likely believe will be their change of pace back of the future (behind Crowell, of course). Coaches can't say things like these and not deliver without leading a terrible example.

And yes, the coach said he regretted the decision after of trying to get three backs involved rather than their previous approach of Tate and Crowell. So yes, you're right, it was a stupid decision, but one he had to make after digging himself into that hole. However, West is a 3rd round pick, they don't intend on giving up on him and they are certainly going to give him opportunities. Most likely they see him as a player to complement Crowell heading into the future.

Every independent media outlet, observer, or even fan feels the same way about Crowell over West. You think the coaching staff doesn't see the same thing everyone else does? Whatever little box you're in, it's very, very small. You should poke some holes in to breathe. Because you will suffocate in your own delusion if you think this is going to play out long-term as anything other than Crowell ahead of West. As soon as you accept that, things stop being complicated and become very, very simple.
Hopkins elitist.
Abdullah apologist.
Ajayi truther.
Bortles drum banger.

User avatar
dlf_jules
Administrator
Posts: 9044
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby dlf_jules » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:32 am

snitchinsider wrote:
Jules wrote: Crowell was the third RB to come into the game in week 7. He only got two carries and no targets in the first half; West got five carries and a catch in the first half, but was benched after failing to convert on 2nd and 2 and 3rd and 1 late in the second quarter.
*eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
The "men of our words" comment was an explanation of why West was inactive against Pittsburgh, not why he was the RB2 against Jacksonville. Crowell may end up being the man -- I tend to think he will be at this point -- but the West/Crowell fight is far from over.
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!

User avatar
snitchinsider
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby snitchinsider » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:34 am

Jules wrote:
snitchinsider wrote:
Jules wrote: Crowell was the third RB to come into the game in week 7. He only got two carries and no targets in the first half; West got five carries and a catch in the first half, but was benched after failing to convert on 2nd and 2 and 3rd and 1 late in the second quarter.
*eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
The "men of our words" comment was an explanation of why West was inactive against Pittsburgh, not why he was the RB2 against Jacksonville. Crowell may end up being the man -- I tend to think he will be at this point -- but the West/Crowell fight is far from over.
Yes, it was a comment explaining why West was not active against Pittsburgh... in the context of if you don't practice hard, you won't play, if you do, you will. Hence next week in Jacksonville. The order in which he comes into the game at that point is not relevant. We don't know their gameplan. We don't know if they intended to use West in the first half, Crowell in the second because he's more physical to close out a game. We don't know if Crowell didn't "practice hard" as they wanted. We don't know any of this. All we know is what was said, and what we've seen so far this season, which is West being made inactive, and West averaging just 3.3 YPC since week one, and being out-carried by Crowell since week one. Week one being the obvious outlier since that's the game Tate was injured.
Last edited by snitchinsider on Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:10 am, edited 4 times in total.
Hopkins elitist.
Abdullah apologist.
Ajayi truther.
Bortles drum banger.

User avatar
dlf_jules
Administrator
Posts: 9044
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby dlf_jules » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:37 am

snitchinsider wrote:
Jules wrote:
snitchinsider wrote: *eyeroll*

The coaching staff was trying to make good on their promise that if he practices hard, he'll get to play. Almost verbatim it was something like "We'll be men of our words about that" promise. Playing West was a coach move to try and inspire confidence in a young player that had fallen out of favor with the coaching staff and was mentally struggling with being demoted in favor of an UDFA.

After the game, the coach said he regretted trying to get three running backs involved and thinks it hurt their output on Sunday.

Want to take a guess who isn't getting carries again next week?
The "men of our words" comment was an explanation of why West was inactive against Pittsburgh, not why he was the RB2 against Jacksonville. Crowell may end up being the man -- I tend to think he will be at this point -- but the West/Crowell fight is far from over.
Yes, it was a comment explaining why West was not active against Pittsburgh... in the context of if you don't practice hard, you won't play, if you do, you will. Hence next week in Jacksonville.
Full quote: "when we have the type of depth and competition, it comes down to practice. We'll be men of our words when we say 'whoever practices best will be up for the game.'" It's not a promise to West that if he practices hard, he'll play. It's a promise that the back who practices better will play.
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!

User avatar
snitchinsider
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby snitchinsider » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:42 am

Jules wrote:
Full quote: "when we have the type of depth and competition, it comes down to practice. We'll be men of our words when we say 'whoever practices best will be up for the game.'" It's not a promise to West that if he practices hard, he'll play. It's a promise that the back who practices better will play.
It's coach speak for practice hard, or you won't play. Crowell wasn't inactive on gameday when West became active. I wouldn't even put it beyond the coach for this whole practice thing to be a guided shot at Crowell, and not West. Crowell is the one that they had multiple talks with before the season about his effort in practice. Crowell is the one they were concerned wasn't practicing hard enough prior to the season, not West. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is merely a game to encourage Crowell to practice harder by inactivating West when he (West) didn't, and placing West over him when he did.
Last edited by snitchinsider on Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Hopkins elitist.
Abdullah apologist.
Ajayi truther.
Bortles drum banger.

Leoj
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:00 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby Leoj » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:45 am

What do you guys think is a reasonable offer for Crowell right now?
12 team standard - 3rd year
Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 WR/TE, 1 WR/RB/TE, 1 Superflex

QB - Foles, Bridgewater, Bortles
RB - Gurley, M. Jones, D. Johnson, Sims, McKinnon, Rawls
WR - J. Matthews, A. Robinson, D. Adams, Landry, K. Wright, D. Parker, Quick
TE - Kelce, Ladarius Green

User avatar
dlf_jules
Administrator
Posts: 9044
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby dlf_jules » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:49 am

Leoj wrote:What do you guys think is a reasonable offer for Crowell right now?
Mid-late 2015 1st.
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!

User avatar
balaberda
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby balaberda » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:49 am

Leoj wrote:What do you guys think is a reasonable offer for Crowell right now?
Watkins +

Hahaha jokes. It all depends on how the other owner got Crowell. If he drafted him high you won't get him. Most are holding onto him with high hopes.

User avatar
dlf_jules
Administrator
Posts: 9044
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby dlf_jules » Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:57 am

snitchinsider wrote:
Jules wrote:
Full quote: "when we have the type of depth and competition, it comes down to practice. We'll be men of our words when we say 'whoever practices best will be up for the game.'" It's not a promise to West that if he practices hard, he'll play. It's a promise that the back who practices better will play.
It's coach speak for practice hard, or you won't play. Crowell wasn't inactive on gameday when West became active. I wouldn't even put it beyond the coach for this whole practice thing to be a guided shot at Crowell, and not West. Crowell is the one that they had multiple talks with before the season about his effort in practice. Crowell is the one they were concerned wasn't practicing hard enough prior to the season, not West. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is merely a game to encourage Crowell to practice harder by inactivating West when he (West) didn't, and placing West over him when he did.
This is why armchair psychology in these situations is as worthless as your ":eyeroll:". You can't even decide whether this is a motivational ploy for West or a shot across the bow for Crowell. Maybe it's both -- I'm sure Pettine is contemplating all the possible implications of each word he says to the media.

Facts are: West was inactive against Pittsburgh, but then he played over Crowell against Jacksonville until he got stuffed twice on short yardage. Everyone who thought West was sunk after the Pittsburgh game was wrong. I don't know whether the benching will have future implications, but I'm quite confident that Pettine's quote shouldn't factor into our evaluation.
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!

User avatar
snitchinsider
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:42 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby snitchinsider » Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:12 am

Jules wrote:
snitchinsider wrote:
Jules wrote:
Full quote: "when we have the type of depth and competition, it comes down to practice. We'll be men of our words when we say 'whoever practices best will be up for the game.'" It's not a promise to West that if he practices hard, he'll play. It's a promise that the back who practices better will play.
It's coach speak for practice hard, or you won't play. Crowell wasn't inactive on gameday when West became active. I wouldn't even put it beyond the coach for this whole practice thing to be a guided shot at Crowell, and not West. Crowell is the one that they had multiple talks with before the season about his effort in practice. Crowell is the one they were concerned wasn't practicing hard enough prior to the season, not West. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is merely a game to encourage Crowell to practice harder by inactivating West when he (West) didn't, and placing West over him when he did.
This is why armchair psychology in these situations is as worthless as your ":eyeroll:". You can't even decide whether this is a motivational ploy for West or a shot across the bow for Crowell. Maybe it's both -- I'm sure Pettine is contemplating all the possible implications of each word he says to the media.

Facts are: West was inactive against Pittsburgh, but then he played over Crowell against Jacksonville until he got stuffed twice on short yardage. Everyone who thought West was sunk after the Pittsburgh game was wrong. I don't know whether the benching will have future implications, but I'm quite confident that Pettine's quote shouldn't factor into our evaluation.
Fair enough. I stand by my instincts however that this is the work of a coach trying to juggle the emotions, egos and talents of two young backs that they anticipate are a part of their future.
Hopkins elitist.
Abdullah apologist.
Ajayi truther.
Bortles drum banger.

Leoj
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:00 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby Leoj » Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:46 am

balaberda wrote:
Leoj wrote:What do you guys think is a reasonable offer for Crowell right now?
Watkins +

Hahaha jokes. It all depends on how the other owner got Crowell. If he drafted him high you won't get him. Most are holding onto him with high hopes.
he was a waiver pickup

in a bit of irony i of course dropped him near the end of the preseason when he got no touches in their later games
12 team standard - 3rd year
Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 WR/TE, 1 WR/RB/TE, 1 Superflex

QB - Foles, Bridgewater, Bortles
RB - Gurley, M. Jones, D. Johnson, Sims, McKinnon, Rawls
WR - J. Matthews, A. Robinson, D. Adams, Landry, K. Wright, D. Parker, Quick
TE - Kelce, Ladarius Green

Leoj
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:00 am

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby Leoj » Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:53 am

Jules wrote:
Leoj wrote:What do you guys think is a reasonable offer for Crowell right now?
Mid-late 2015 1st.
thanks. might wave a late 1st in front of the owner and see if he bites. i've also got my own (1.1) so i'm kind of torn between acquiring crowell or just drafting a pair of rookies
12 team standard - 3rd year
Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 WR/TE, 1 WR/RB/TE, 1 Superflex

QB - Foles, Bridgewater, Bortles
RB - Gurley, M. Jones, D. Johnson, Sims, McKinnon, Rawls
WR - J. Matthews, A. Robinson, D. Adams, Landry, K. Wright, D. Parker, Quick
TE - Kelce, Ladarius Green

User avatar
dlf_jules
Administrator
Posts: 9044
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: Isaiah Crowell (Please ignore 49ersFaithful80)

Postby dlf_jules » Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:28 am

snitchinsider wrote:Fair enough. I stand by my instincts however that this is the work of a coach trying to juggle the emotions, egos and talents of two young backs that they anticipate are a part of their future.
That's fair too. In such a muddled situation, instincts may be the best way to go. If I had to make a 50/50 bet on one of Crowell or West right now, I'd bet Crowell. But if I were going to buy one at current market price (and I'm not -- I sold my only shares, and I'm happy sitting this one out), it'd probably be West.
Download the 2019 Cohort Report for free today!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests