Sobering Review of Shonn Greene - Page 4

EM31 · 06-27-2012, 10:05 AM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501787]And we also don't have the "where you crash and bash and bang and bruise the defense till they can't arm tackle anymore" guy either.

Greene isn't that guy. They thought he was when they drafted him. But he's not that guy.[/QUOTE]
He tries to be that guy and when he can stay healthy and on the field[U] he is that guy[/U]. Unfortunately he has not shown the durability required to play that style.

124 · 06-27-2012, 10:11 AM

I still have semi-high hopes for Greene, but he's best when he sees 20-30 carries a game. He's not a back who can only handle it 12-15 times and produce game in and game out, and he doesn't have good hands coming out of the backfield either. He's a two-down back who can become a good, not great, back if given the ball enough. He may get his opportunity this year with Sparano. We'll see.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 10:11 AM

[QUOTE=EM31;4501803]He tries to be that guy and when he can stay healthy and on the field[U] he is that guy[/U]. Unfortunately he has not shown the durability required to play that style.[/QUOTE]
I disagree.

Maybe he tries to be that guy but he's not that guy because he invariably cannot break tackles at the LOS or move the pile.

The writer is correct in his assessments.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 10:15 AM

[QUOTE=124;4501813]I still have semi-high hopes for Greene, but he's best when he sees 20-30 carries a game. He's not a back who can only handle it 12-15 times and produce game in and game out, and he doesn't have good hands coming out of the backfield either. He's a two-down back who can become a good, not great, back if given the ball enough. He may get his opportunity this year with Sparano. We'll see.[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with that is that if he sees 20-30 touches per game, that implies that he's a #1 feature back.

I don't think he is.

I do think that he could be an excellent complimentary back to a true #1 guy and CAN be effective getting 10 or so touches per game. Especially in the 2nd half when the defense is presumably getting tired.

124 · 06-27-2012, 10:20 AM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501819]The problem I have with that is that if he sees 20-30 touches per game, that implies that he's a #1 feature back.

I don't think he is.

I do think that he could be an excellent complimentary back to a true #1 guy and CAN be effective getting 10 or so touches per game. Especially in the 2nd half when the defense is presumably getting tired.[/QUOTE]

He can be a nice fourth quarter back, similar to what LaMont Jordan did for Curtis for a few years, but there's nobody on the roster (I think) that's going to over-take Greene as the No.1 back. I think he is a middle-of-the-line No.1 back, especially if he is given 20-30 touches a game. He needs to be on a G&P team, make no mistake about that.

Austin · 06-27-2012, 10:37 AM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501814]I disagree.

Maybe he tries to be that guy but he's not that guy because he invariably cannot break tackles at the LOS or move the pile.

The writer is correct in his assessments.[/QUOTE]

I do think Greene is a brusier who punishes defenders. He's involved in a lot of hard collisions -- this is part of the reason he's good late in games. When the defense is tired they don't want any part of him, particularly if he IS fresh.

Agree that he doesn't really move the pile at all, and he really only seems to break tackles against members of the secondary... His biggest issue is still how lame he is in the passing game, IMO. He can't block or catch.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 10:55 AM

[QUOTE=Austin;4501838]I do think Greene is a brusier who punishes defenders. He's involved in a lot of hard collisions -- this is part of the reason he's good late in games. When the defense is tired they don't want any part of him, particularly if he IS fresh.

Agree that he doesn't really move the pile at all, and he really only seems to break tackles against members of the secondary... His biggest issue is still how lame he is in the passing game, IMO. He can't block or catch.[/QUOTE]

And I don't think he has the vision. Which prevents him from seeing the holes.

IMO Greene has the mentality and the size to be a bruiser. It just hasn't translated to the field on a regular basis. And as we have all seen, he seems to [U]get[/U] the "pound" more than he gives it.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 10:56 AM

[QUOTE=124;4501826]He can be a nice fourth quarter back, similar to what LaMont Jordan did for Curtis for a few years, but there's nobody on the roster (I think) that's going to over-take Greene as the No.1 back. I think he is a middle-of-the-line No.1 back, especially if he is given 20-30 touches a game. He needs to be on a G&P team, make no mistake about that.[/QUOTE]
I agree. There's no one right now on the roster that is a #1 feature back. Just in title only.

sect313 · 06-27-2012, 11:05 AM

greene is a good complimentary back who can come in when the defense is wore down and punish them and get good yardage like he did when we had TJ here. we need McKnight, Ganaway or Powell to step in and be able to handle 10 carries and give us production. if so, with Tebow also getting carries the running game should be fine.

parafly · 06-27-2012, 11:13 AM

The article is 100% on the money in its assessment of Greene. He is a completely one dimensional player who routinely leaves yards on the field and is below average in the receiving and pass blocking departments.

In today's NFL where the running game consists of a committee of specialized players, Greene simply isn't a good fit anywhere. The Jets need to move on from Greene and find a long term workhorse solution, and I believe this is a part of their plan. The hope is that McKnight continues his development as a change of pace and third down player while Ganaway emerges into the player that Greene was supposed to be.

Ray Ray19 · 06-27-2012, 12:05 PM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501854][B]And I don't think he has the vision. Which prevents him from seeing the holes.[/B]

IMO Greene has the mentality and the size to be a bruiser. It just hasn't translated to the field on a regular basis. And as we have all seen, he seems to [U]get[/U] the "pound" more than he gives it.[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process.

Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player.

The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT.

This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 12:07 PM

[QUOTE=sect313;4501864]greene is a good complimentary back who can come in when the defense is wore down and punish them and get good yardage like he did when we had TJ here. we need McKnight, Ganaway or Powell to step in and be able to handle 10 carries and give us production. if so, with Tebow also getting carries the running game should be fine.[/QUOTE]

:confused:

If he's a good complimentary back (which I agree he would be), that means someone else has to be the guy who carries the ball more often.

If McKnight, Ganaway or Powell (highly doubt it) are getting only 10 carries, who is wearing down the defense for Greene?

CraigFL · 06-27-2012, 12:15 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ganaway get some of the 20-25 touches Greene would get. Similar type of back that could help wear down defenses and keep Greene fresh.

sect313 · 06-27-2012, 12:17 PM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501931]:confused:

If he's a good complimentary back (which I agree he would be), that means someone else has to be the guy who carries the ball more often.

If McKnight, Ganaway or Powell (highly doubt it) are getting only 10 carries, who is wearing down the defense for Greene?[/QUOTE]

we dont have that guy right now. but if someone can at least be effective getting 8-10 carries, with greene getting 15 and then throw in Tebow with a few, the running game can be effective (thats assuming the Oline plays well which is a different story)

John_0515 · 06-27-2012, 12:18 PM

[QUOTE=Ray Ray19;4501926]:rolleyes:

Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process.

Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player.

The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT.

This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.[/QUOTE]

Ray, he's very bad at going to where there's daylight. He runs to tacklers in the open field. He hits the hole hard, but lacks that secondary vision, IMO. You know I'm not trying to argue with you, but Greene's a little disappointing in that regard.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 12:20 PM

[QUOTE=Ray Ray19;4501926]:rolleyes:

Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process.

Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player.

The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT.

This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.[/QUOTE]

That's wonderful Ray. Gholston was a beast in college and pre-draft too.

I liked Greene in college. Unfortunately. his game hasn't translated to the NFL. The talent's a little bigger, faster and stronger.

You can roll your eyes all you want but the writer nailed it.

But I don't expect you to be able to accept that. Of course not.

Raider9175 · 06-27-2012, 12:21 PM

[QUOTE=parafly;4501871]The article is 100% on the money in its assessment of Greene. He is a completely one dimensional player who routinely leaves yards on the field and is below average in the receiving and pass blocking departments.

In today's NFL where the running game consists of a committee of specialized players, Greene simply isn't a good fit anywhere. The Jets need to move on from Greene and find a long term workhorse solution, and I believe this is a part of their plan. The hope is that McKnight continues his development as a change of pace and third down player while Ganaway emerges into the player that Greene was supposed to be.[/QUOTE]

Terrance Ganaway isn't as good a back as Shonn Greene. Terrance Ganaway it takes him a long time for him to reach top speed. Against the speed of Nfl defenses that can be a serious problem.

Right now without a doubt Shonn Greene is the best back Jets have on their roster. Ideally you might want a better all round RB than Greene, but Greene is still a nice complement RB to that number 1 Rb type. Whenever you find that RB.

Jordy · 06-27-2012, 12:27 PM

[QUOTE=John_0515;4501946]Ray, he's very bad at going to where there's daylight. He runs to tacklers in the open field. He hits the hole hard, but lacks that secondary vision, IMO. [B]You know I'm not trying to argue with you[/B], but Greene's a little disappointing in that regard.[/QUOTE]

LOL. You might as well be prepared to spend the better part of the next hour...or days.

John_0515 · 06-27-2012, 01:11 PM

[QUOTE=Jordy;4501965]LOL. You might as well be prepared to spend the better part of the next hour...or days.[/QUOTE]

Ray's alright. We get along. I just disagree that Greene has good vision. I think his vision is very poor, or that he's intent of showing that he's a bruising back. Not going to last very long if he keeps that up.

We need an everydown back, and I don't think he's on the roster right now.

PatsFanTX · 06-27-2012, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=John_0515;4501996]
We need an everydown back, and I don't think he's on the roster right now.[/QUOTE]

How many teams have an everydown RB these days?

Maybe a handful?

06-27-2012, 10:05 AM	#61
EM31 All Pro Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Oceanside, Long Island Posts: 9,143	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501787]And we also don't have the "where you crash and bash and bang and bruise the defense till they can't arm tackle anymore" guy either. Greene isn't that guy. They thought he was when they drafted him. But he's not that guy.[/QUOTE] He tries to be that guy and when he can stay healthy and on the field[U] he is that guy[/U]. Unfortunately he has not shown the durability required to play that style.

06-27-2012, 10:11 AM	#62
124 All Pro Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7,958	I still have semi-high hopes for Greene, but he's best when he sees 20-30 carries a game. He's not a back who can only handle it 12-15 times and produce game in and game out, and he doesn't have good hands coming out of the backfield either. He's a two-down back who can become a good, not great, back if given the ball enough. He may get his opportunity this year with Sparano. We'll see.

06-27-2012, 10:11 AM	#63
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=EM31;4501803]He tries to be that guy and when he can stay healthy and on the field[U] he is that guy[/U]. Unfortunately he has not shown the durability required to play that style.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Maybe he tries to be that guy but he's not that guy because he invariably cannot break tackles at the LOS or move the pile. The writer is correct in his assessments.

06-27-2012, 10:15 AM	#64
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=124;4501813]I still have semi-high hopes for Greene, but he's best when he sees 20-30 carries a game. He's not a back who can only handle it 12-15 times and produce game in and game out, and he doesn't have good hands coming out of the backfield either. He's a two-down back who can become a good, not great, back if given the ball enough. He may get his opportunity this year with Sparano. We'll see.[/QUOTE] The problem I have with that is that if he sees 20-30 touches per game, that implies that he's a #1 feature back. I don't think he is. I do think that he could be an excellent complimentary back to a true #1 guy and CAN be effective getting 10 or so touches per game. Especially in the 2nd half when the defense is presumably getting tired.

06-27-2012, 10:20 AM	#65
124 All Pro Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7,958	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501819]The problem I have with that is that if he sees 20-30 touches per game, that implies that he's a #1 feature back. I don't think he is. I do think that he could be an excellent complimentary back to a true #1 guy and CAN be effective getting 10 or so touches per game. Especially in the 2nd half when the defense is presumably getting tired.[/QUOTE] He can be a nice fourth quarter back, similar to what LaMont Jordan did for Curtis for a few years, but there's nobody on the roster (I think) that's going to over-take Greene as the No.1 back. I think he is a middle-of-the-line No.1 back, especially if he is given 20-30 touches a game. He needs to be on a G&P team, make no mistake about that.

06-27-2012, 10:37 AM	#66
Austin WINNING All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Upper East Side Posts: 6,184	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501814]I disagree. Maybe he tries to be that guy but he's not that guy because he invariably cannot break tackles at the LOS or move the pile. The writer is correct in his assessments.[/QUOTE] I do think Greene is a brusier who punishes defenders. He's involved in a lot of hard collisions -- this is part of the reason he's good late in games. When the defense is tired they don't want any part of him, particularly if he IS fresh. Agree that he doesn't really move the pile at all, and he really only seems to break tackles against members of the secondary... His biggest issue is still how lame he is in the passing game, IMO. He can't block or catch.

06-27-2012, 10:55 AM	#67
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=Austin;4501838]I do think Greene is a brusier who punishes defenders. He's involved in a lot of hard collisions -- this is part of the reason he's good late in games. When the defense is tired they don't want any part of him, particularly if he IS fresh. Agree that he doesn't really move the pile at all, and he really only seems to break tackles against members of the secondary... His biggest issue is still how lame he is in the passing game, IMO. He can't block or catch.[/QUOTE] And I don't think he has the vision. Which prevents him from seeing the holes. IMO Greene has the mentality and the size to be a bruiser. It just hasn't translated to the field on a regular basis. And as we have all seen, he seems to [U]get[/U] the "pound" more than he gives it.

06-27-2012, 10:56 AM	#68
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=124;4501826]He can be a nice fourth quarter back, similar to what LaMont Jordan did for Curtis for a few years, but there's nobody on the roster (I think) that's going to over-take Greene as the No.1 back. I think he is a middle-of-the-line No.1 back, especially if he is given 20-30 touches a game. He needs to be on a G&P team, make no mistake about that.[/QUOTE] I agree. There's no one right now on the roster that is a #1 feature back. Just in title only.

06-27-2012, 11:05 AM	#69
sect313 Numb All League Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,614	greene is a good complimentary back who can come in when the defense is wore down and punish them and get good yardage like he did when we had TJ here. we need McKnight, Ganaway or Powell to step in and be able to handle 10 carries and give us production. if so, with Tebow also getting carries the running game should be fine.

06-27-2012, 11:13 AM	#70
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,280	The article is 100% on the money in its assessment of Greene. He is a completely one dimensional player who routinely leaves yards on the field and is below average in the receiving and pass blocking departments. In today's NFL where the running game consists of a committee of specialized players, Greene simply isn't a good fit anywhere. The Jets need to move on from Greene and find a long term workhorse solution, and I believe this is a part of their plan. The hope is that McKnight continues his development as a change of pace and third down player while Ganaway emerges into the player that Greene was supposed to be.

06-27-2012, 12:05 PM	#71
Ray Ray19 Not a SOJF Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 13,797	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501854][B]And I don't think he has the vision. Which prevents him from seeing the holes.[/B] IMO Greene has the mentality and the size to be a bruiser. It just hasn't translated to the field on a regular basis. And as we have all seen, he seems to [U]get[/U] the "pound" more than he gives it.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process. Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player. The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT. This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.

06-27-2012, 12:07 PM	#72
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=sect313;4501864]greene is a good complimentary back who can come in when the defense is wore down and punish them and get good yardage like he did when we had TJ here. we need McKnight, Ganaway or Powell to step in and be able to handle 10 carries and give us production. if so, with Tebow also getting carries the running game should be fine.[/QUOTE] :confused: If he's a good complimentary back (which I agree he would be), that means someone else has to be the guy who carries the ball more often. If McKnight, Ganaway or Powell (highly doubt it) are getting only 10 carries, who is wearing down the defense for Greene?

06-27-2012, 12:15 PM	#73
CraigFL still a rookie after 4 years. should be SanchezFL Rookie Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Coral, FL Posts: 987	I wouldn't be surprised to see Ganaway get some of the 20-25 touches Greene would get. Similar type of back that could help wear down defenses and keep Greene fresh.

06-27-2012, 12:17 PM	#74
sect313 Numb All League Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,614	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501931]:confused: If he's a good complimentary back (which I agree he would be), that means someone else has to be the guy who carries the ball more often. If McKnight, Ganaway or Powell (highly doubt it) are getting only 10 carries, who is wearing down the defense for Greene?[/QUOTE] we dont have that guy right now. but if someone can at least be effective getting 8-10 carries, with greene getting 15 and then throw in Tebow with a few, the running game can be effective (thats assuming the Oline plays well which is a different story)

06-27-2012, 12:18 PM	#75
John_0515 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 21,121	[QUOTE=Ray Ray19;4501926]:rolleyes: Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process. Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player. The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT. This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.[/QUOTE] Ray, he's very bad at going to where there's daylight. He runs to tacklers in the open field. He hits the hole hard, but lacks that secondary vision, IMO. You know I'm not trying to argue with you, but Greene's a little disappointing in that regard.

06-27-2012, 12:20 PM	#76
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=Ray Ray19;4501926]:rolleyes: Greene's vision is one of his attributes that got him recognized coming out of college and in the pre-draft process. Greene is a good back, injuries have been an issue, but not unlike any other player. The Jets haven't featured Greene because they haven't had to, they've had quality players around him, whether it was Thomas Jones or LT. This will be the first year he will be the vet back on the RB unit.[/QUOTE] That's wonderful Ray. Gholston was a beast in college and pre-draft too. I liked Greene in college. Unfortunately. his game hasn't translated to the NFL. The talent's a little bigger, faster and stronger. You can roll your eyes all you want but the writer nailed it. But I don't expect you to be able to accept that. Of course not.

06-27-2012, 12:21 PM	#77
Raider9175 Raider football- JUST FLYNN BABY. All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,281	[QUOTE=parafly;4501871]The article is 100% on the money in its assessment of Greene. He is a completely one dimensional player who routinely leaves yards on the field and is below average in the receiving and pass blocking departments. In today's NFL where the running game consists of a committee of specialized players, Greene simply isn't a good fit anywhere. The Jets need to move on from Greene and find a long term workhorse solution, and I believe this is a part of their plan. The hope is that McKnight continues his development as a change of pace and third down player while Ganaway emerges into the player that Greene was supposed to be.[/QUOTE] Terrance Ganaway isn't as good a back as Shonn Greene. Terrance Ganaway it takes him a long time for him to reach top speed. Against the speed of Nfl defenses that can be a serious problem. Right now without a doubt Shonn Greene is the best back Jets have on their roster. Ideally you might want a better all round RB than Greene, but Greene is still a nice complement RB to that number 1 Rb type. Whenever you find that RB.

06-27-2012, 12:27 PM	#78
Jordy Keeping it real... Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tårnby, Denmark Posts: 23,145	[QUOTE=John_0515;4501946]Ray, he's very bad at going to where there's daylight. He runs to tacklers in the open field. He hits the hole hard, but lacks that secondary vision, IMO. [B]You know I'm not trying to argue with you[/B], but Greene's a little disappointing in that regard.[/QUOTE] LOL. You might as well be prepared to spend the better part of the next hour...or days.

06-27-2012, 01:11 PM	#79
John_0515 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 21,121	[QUOTE=Jordy;4501965]LOL. You might as well be prepared to spend the better part of the next hour...or days.[/QUOTE] Ray's alright. We get along. I just disagree that Greene has good vision. I think his vision is very poor, or that he's intent of showing that he's a bruising back. Not going to last very long if he keeps that up. We need an everydown back, and I don't think he's on the roster right now.

06-27-2012, 01:18 PM	#80
PatsFanTX JI Resident Troll Banned Join Date: May 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 52,068	[QUOTE=John_0515;4501996] We need an everydown back, and I don't think he's on the roster right now.[/QUOTE] How many teams have an everydown RB these days? Maybe a handful?