Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

13 Oct 2010

Browns Deal Jerome Harrison To Eagles

Jay Glazer is reporting that the Browns have dealt Jerome Harrison to the Eagles for Mike Bell.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 13 Oct 2010

55 comments, Last at 19 Oct 2010, 9:58am by JL

Comments

1
by the cat in the box is dead (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 2:52pm

If that's a straight up trade, then I'd say Andy Reid has some pretty incriminating pictures of either Tom Heckert or Mike Holmgren.

Hopefully this trade means he won't be sharing them with Deadspin any time soon. No-one needs that.

2
by tuluse :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 2:57pm

Eric Mangini must have really hated Jerome Harrison.

This seems like an excellent trade for the Eagles.

3
by chemical burn :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:01pm

Holy cow, this is awesome! Mike Bell was a complete waste of space! Jerome Harrison could not be worse... and maybe he's as good as FO seems to think he is? Can you imagine if the Eagles actually had a Staley/Westbrook type backfield again? This is genuinely exciting!

4
by tuluse :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:06pm

Harrison is exciting for sure. He looks good when he has the ball in his hands.

No idea what his blitz pick up or route running is like though.

6
by chemical burn :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:19pm

That's a good point, but I can't imagine they'll be using him in 3rd down situations too much. McCoy and (a pleasant surprise) Owen Schmitt have been too good catching the pass to even bother finding out if Harrison can do it. Plus, it's not like he could be worse than Mike Bell at either of those things. And, seriously, go check out Bell's DVOA.

It's nice to have a guy that can run into the line for 4 yards occasionally nad maybe punish defenders a bit... I mean, McCoy has been good enough that this is more of an insurance move, but it is some mighty interesting insurance.

24
by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 5:03pm

given how much the Iggles have been relying on McCoy, he definitely needs a backup, even if just for the occasional blow. Putting Mike Bell in for a play or two basically killed the Eagles offensive momentum (they can't run and he's not a legit receiving threat).

good trade for the Eagles, methinks. Wonder why Harrison was so firmly entrenched in Mangini's doghouse.

34
by bubqr :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:51am

Can't run != Don't run.

11
by huston720 :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:23pm

As a Browns fan in my opinion his blitz pick up was fine for a smaller back, but like most smaller backs he wasn't a match for a larger linebacker, and his route running is fine. As for his running ability he has shown himself to be a boom and bust back, even at the end of last year he wasn't consistent, and this year he has has only one boom run. Also he is prone to nagging injuries.

14
by chemical burn :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:30pm

Reminder to self: never get excited. I don't want "boom or bust" or a "smaller back," dammit! They already got one of those!

5
by AudacityOfHoops :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:07pm

Does it seem like there have been more early-season trades than usual?

Or am I just paying more attention this year?

18
by PatsFan :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:54pm

Well, with October 19th being the trading deadline it would be hard to have any mid-season or late-season trades. :)

23
by qed :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 4:59pm

Yeah, I thought in-season trades in the NFL were prohibited somewhere around 1995. I can't ever remember this many in-season moves involving players actually on the 53-man roster. Maybe it's something to do with the CBA expiring? Can't figure out what that would have to do with it, but it would be the one difference this season.

26
by tuluse :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 5:48pm

Week 6 is the trade deadline and it has been for a while now.

Roy Williams was another rather high profile trade that happened mid season.

28
by Anon (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 6:46pm

No salary cap, no bonus acceleration.

44
by erniecohen :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 6:05am

I think it would be kind of fun if they allowed trades (as well as other roster moves) anytime, including in the middle of a game.

52
by JDOE137 (not verified) :: Mon, 10/18/2010 - 11:08pm

Do they ever fire players or coaches in mid-game? There have been times where it sure seems like a good idea. Bad press, probably...

55
by JL (not verified) :: Tue, 10/19/2010 - 9:58am

There are more in-season trades because it is an uncapped year. Normally when you trade a player with years remaining on his contract, the un-amortized portion of any bonus payments accelerate into the present year for the team trading the player. Since there is no cap, that that cap hit is destroyed by moving the player. (Some analysts predicted that more overpaid veterans would be cut this year because of this as well, but off the top of my head, I can only think of Jamarcus Russell.)

6
by spenczar :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:19pm

Can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation for why Cleveland does this? I'm being serious. I can't think of one, but I don't know the Browns that well.

9
by chemical burn :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:19pm

Mangini was a famous "doghouse" in NYC - seems like he's doing more of that business in Cleveland...

10
by Dean :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:21pm

Maybe they think that Bell can be effective in Cleveland like he was New Orleans?

After all, Philly has a pretty lousy track record with "power" RBs.

12
by huston720 :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:28pm

The Browns are banged up at both QB and Rb, Hillis is questionable, James Davis who is the third rb has an injury and the Browns already had to sign a 4th QB since our first two are out. So basically they needed to either trade for or sign a rb and if they signed one would have to cut someone else, they probably didn't want to do that and carry 4 QBs and 4 rbs on the 53 man roster.

Plus I know Eagles fans are ecstatic thinking back to the Harrison from the end of the last season, but this Harrison is hardly that player so far this year, though he does have more upside than Mike Bell.

25
by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 5:04pm

He not only has more upside, he's also a better player right now. Mike Bell sucks.

13
by chemical burn :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:28pm

According FO's stats, Bell was lousy in New Orleans. Also, the Eagles had fine success with Duce Staley, right? And that was only half a decade ago!

20
by Dean :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 4:25pm

Half?

38
by Big Johnson :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 2:47pm

remind me if im wrong but duce staley was just awful. He was the joke runningback me and my group of friends would make fun of when we knew someone was awful. droppin' a duce!

39
by Dean :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:05pm

Consider yourself corrected.

He's not going to Canton or anything, but in his prime, he was a legitimate franchise RB.

40
by chemical burn :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:55pm

Yeah in 2003, if he had rushed 4 more times to meet the 100 minimum rushes required, he would have ranked #2 in DVOA and #17 in DYAR - essentially the same rushing value as Hearst in SF and Fred Taylor in JAX on 100 and 250 fewer carries, respectively. (and that's just one random year I pulled up.) He was certainly above average and definitely deserving Dean's "legit" rating.

41
by Big Johnson :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 6:00pm

thats so bizarre to me because this was right when i started watching football and initially started watching because of fantasy football. His raw numbers were pretty obviously garbage and we used to trash on him and bill green, the browns runningback. thanks for the clarification

42
by chemical burn :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 7:36pm

And you probably loved Aaron Brooks.

54
by William Lloyd Garrision III (not verified) :: Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:56am

This D. Staley sub-thread offers no value and I wish it would stop.

22
by MilkmanDanimal :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 4:35pm

DO NOT DOUBT THE MANGENIUS, THE MANGENIUS KNOWS ALL.

29
by The Human Spider :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 6:53pm

About as much as Norv Turner.

8
by Karl Cuba :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:19pm

Epic fail for the Browns.

15
by Venger :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:40pm

At least they've got someone who can spell McCoy now. Bell certainly couldn't do that.

16
by DGL :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:46pm

Bell doesn't know spelling?

21
by Kevin from Philly :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 4:34pm

Apparently, he's a ding-a-ling.

27
by Pass to Set Up ... :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 6:21pm

S: (v) spell (relieve (someone) from work by taking a turn) "She spelled her husband at the wheel"

35
by frievalt :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 4:26am

joke (jOk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.

37
by dbostedo :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 8:51am

winner [win-er]
n.
1. See "freivalt"

17
by NCDawg (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 3:54pm

Harrison has been shocking this season, Hillis has had some success with the same supporting cast.

His performance against the Falcons at the weekend was embarrassing. He didn't even look like he was trying to avoid contact and looked disinterested when running routes split out wide.

Guess the Browns wanted someone more 'similar' to Hillis.

19
by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 4:09pm

What, do the Redskins not think they need a running back? They've missed out on Lynch and now Harrison. How many young, talented backs are left to be traded off for chump change?

36
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 6:44am

I don't think Harrison's a good fit for the scheme, and it's not hard to see why teams might not fancy Lynch for character reasons. I wouldn't worry too much: they're not a contender this year whoever's taking hand-offs, and by next year the scheme will be bedded in and the offense will be productive almost regardless of the talent of anyone involved. Just hope you don't end up with defenses like the late Shanahan years in Denver . . .

30
by lloyd :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 9:16pm

As a Packers fan, I was wondering why there was no talk of the Packers trading for Harrison (like there was for Lynch.) Now I'm wondering where the hell Ted Thompson was on this. He's traded with Mangini before, and used to work for Holmgren, so it's not like there's no relationship there.

31
by Xeynon (not verified) :: Wed, 10/13/2010 - 11:49pm

And given that all the Browns got in return for him was Mike Bell, it's pretty clear their asking price wasn't too high.

You've got to keep those late round draft picks, though. That pick they would have had to give up for Harrison could end up being the next Brett Swain or Clark Harris.

32
by Theo :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:48am

Lawrence Timmons doesn't care what the name is of the runningback he tackles in the backfield.

33
by Theo :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 3:49am

OT.
Are the Browns really doing everything they can to get rid of every offensive talent they have?

43
by V. Barbarino (not verified) :: Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:58pm

The Browns top two running backs ( Hillis, Bell ) were both on Denver's bench two years ago. All the columnists in this cowtown weep ink about good ol' scrappy Peyton and how he should still be here, pounding the pumpkin up the middle for glory.
Nobody mentions Mike Bell.

45
by Eddo :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:42am

I see what you're getting at, but also couldn't it be that Hillis is just a better back than Bell? It sure seems that way to me.

46
by Alap (not verified) :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:54am

Hahahah--"Pounding the pumpkin up the middle for glory."

47
by johnny two jacks (not verified) :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 4:02pm

crazy that this seemingly harmless RB swap produced over 60 comments from the FO intelligentia

48
by Dean :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 4:16pm

Probably because both sides have the potential to add a really valuable player in exchange for nothing, and both sides have the same potential to add bottom-of-the-roster flotsam. Nobody really knows what to make of it.

49
by chemical burn :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 4:22pm

Also, it seems to me that the FO hardcore readers most likely to prop up a discussion are the Eagles, Pats, Colts and Vikings fans... so small things about those teams get discussed in more detail than might be strictly logical...

50
by Dean :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 4:34pm

Add San Diego, Seattle, and the Giants to that list.

51
by chemical burn :: Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:19pm

San Diego, for sure. I know Barnwell and Farrar are Giants & Seahawks fans, respectively, but I don't feel like there are so many people who comment here that are. C seems to have stopped posting and JasonK isn't an excessive poster like you or I. Cowboys probably qualify as well. And Steelers.

53
by Bill Barnwell :: Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:30am

Obnoxious comment thread magically disappeared.