Post-Game Thread: Victory at Last! Yay?
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
in General News
695 comments
The Cleveland Browns are no longer winless. If we needed some form of momentum heading into Pittsburgh next week, I suppose a win is uplifting. And, although it wasn't the reason we won, the Browns are 1-0 in the post-Braylon Edwards era.
Bottom line, a win is a win. Also bottom line, this was the type of game in which you could make a highlight reel solely on how much of a joke both teams were at points. QB Derek Anderson suffered from some drops, but on the game he was just 2-of-17 for 23 yards and an interception. And we won.
Trent Edwards proved my point prior to the game that he is one of the league's worst starting quarterbacks. Nonetheless, props to our defense for holding their own throughout the game. Most of all, our special teams unit deserves a ton of credit for an amazing effort that didn't need the help of Joshua Cribbs. Having two punts downed at the one, one punt downed at the four, and then a fumble recovery on a punt to set up the game-winning field goal for the Browns makes Dave Zastudil the game's MVP without question.
By the way: I chose the picture above for a reason. I was literally laughing my arse off after seeing Eric Mangini, Rob Ryan, and Derek Anderson celebrate as if they'd won the Super Bowl following the game.
0 recs |
695 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I wouldnt be able to celebrate if I was Anderson. I would just be embaressed.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 4:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Did you read the “repeat whiny tone back to your kid to show them how it sounds”? AKA, mock your small child.
by joeee on Oct 12, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Through 2 1/2 games:
Derek Anderson: 37 for 84 (44%) 384 yards, 4.57 YPA, 1 TD 5 INT, 37.0 QB Rating
Brady Quinn: 45 for 74 (60%) 400 yards, 5.41 YPA, 1 TD 3 INT, 62.9 QB Rating
Brady had to play the Vikings (5-0), Broncos (5-0) and Ravens (3-2). Anderson got dates the second half of the Ravens, Cincinnati(4-1) and Buffalo(1-4). And Anderson’s the answer?
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie? Quinn being pulled after 2 1/2 games was a desperation call which didn’t pan out.
Why is Anderson being allowed to get away with the garbage we would never accept from Quinn?
by zesty on Oct 11, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?
What would you like this to look like? Should Savage and Crennel apologize from their living rooms? Should DA say sorry he had a career year? Should Quinn’s agent apologize for the holdout?
Get over that. And stop thinking of Quinn as some golden boy first round pick. If it was a mistake, it was made by people that have NOTHING to do with the Browns anymore. Start thinking of him as an inexperienced and ineffective QB. He is one of two QBs on this team. He just barely edged out DA to start the season. He was incredibly ineffective and was benched. DA hasn’t played great, but put together a decent game last week.
I wouldn’t be shocked or angry if either QB got the start next week, but let’s stop fooling ourselves that one of them deserves anything.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where do people get this notion that he barely beat out DA in the preseason. It wasn’t even close, Quinn scored on like 60% of his possessions. I think DA scored on two possessions all preseason.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They split first team snaps until the last minute. If you really think Mangini was trying to hide something or being clever, fine. I just think he had them evaluated very closely through camp and preseason. Maybe it was the slight advantage Quinn had in the preseason games (neither had all that many possessions) that gave him the edge, but that isn’t everything they were evaluated on.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reps mean very little, as Mangini was going to “let the process” happen no matter what. If after two games one QB had a 100 rating and another had a 40, they would have split the reps the third still. The bottom line is that when comparing the equal reps, it wasn’t even close.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But your missing the point that the preseason games were only a part of the evaluation. If there was such separation, there is absolutely no way Quinn loses the job in 2.5 games.
And there wasn’t nearly as much separation as you are suggesting in the games.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“there is absolutely no way Quinn (should have lost) the job in 2.5 games.” Fixed.
Agree to disagree about the separation.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know we’re agreeing to disagree, but to say that the qb derby was anything but tight is mis-remembering (to quote the great roger clemens), or misrepresenting the facts.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn is a golden boy quarterback. Around here he is merely jaded.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 7:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Anderson’s the answer?
No.
When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?
You do realize that we have an entirely new coaching staff than the one we at time that we drafted Quinn, right? Also, did you ever stop to think that perhaps Quinn just isn’t that good of a pro QB?
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, everyone has stopped to think about that. Of course, it’s a mere possibility, not an empirical conclusion.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s more likely than the idea that it is the fault of an organization’s coaching staff which wasn’t even present to do what they’re being blamed for.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, agree to disagree.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
brady quinn was an amazing college qb, he will never be a good pro qb, he just doesn’t have the tools. yes, his 5.5 games are not a huge sample size, but none of them have shown me any reason to believe he’s any good. at least DA plays like a pro-bowler every once in a while
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by “tools” you mean “arm” I completely disagree.
If you don’t mean “arm”, I don’t know how you can say “never”.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
so many fewer words. So much more said.
This.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i mean things like decision making and leadership. This team hadn’t quit on eric mangini they quit on brady quinn. also, even if he had an arm (he doesn’t) it wouldn’t make a difference, he refuses to use it.
and before you say he can learn to make better decisions, what about DA? if he had better decision making skills wouldn’t he be a much better qb than quinn anyway?
to be perfectly clear, anderson is not a great qb by any stretch, but he has enough natural ability to win games.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blah blah blah. Quinn’s arm strength is above average, and 5 games spread out intermittently over three years and 3 different coordinators means nothing.
Go Browns, I hope DA is someday even better than he was in 07 (definitely possible, he’s only 26), but your opinions on Quinn are either pure conjecture or empirically wrong.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 games over three years is certainly not dispositive, but i think we can say with confidence that there is legitimate concern about brady, given the fact that he clearly regressed over that 5 game span.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Legitimate concern” ≠ “he will never be a good pro qb”
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree completely. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be nervous about quinn.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am 100% nervous, which is exactly why I would love to see if he is the answer or not—or at least see more of him to begin to answer that question.
I am glad DA led us to a win, despite a ton of drops and some terrible throws, but I just want the answer at QB. Not an answer, the answer.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want the answer at QB. Not an answer, the answer.
This should be the motto for next years draft.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You want Allen Iverson? Didn’t he play quarterback in high school?
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 13, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Practice, man? I mean, we talkin’ about practice. Not the game, practice. I mean, practice.
by drjeo on Oct 13, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree completely. Words fail to express how much I hate the seemingly perpetual uncertainty….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 13, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize if you use “empirically wrong” one more time you will shatter a hundred year old record!!!
by cfields on Oct 13, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had no clue, but that’s what makes these comments so maddening.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 13, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The team didn’t quit on Brady Quinn — that’s a ridiculous statement.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DA and Brady can both learn to be better QBs, which is exactly why you can’t say either of them could “never” be a good pro.
As I said below, Quinn’s lack of confidence and lack of ability to move the ball are legit concerns. DA’s lack of ability to move the ball is a legit concern, too. The whole offense (except for 3 of our OL) is bad right now.
But the fact that you said BQ could “never” develop into a pro—not even a pro bowler—is hyperbole, poor analysis, and is not appreciated here.
You have provided no reason for supporting DA besides his past performances. Quinn has played well at ND and in 2007 and 2008. He’s also played poorly this year. DA has played well in 2007 and poorly in late 2007 and 2008. I don’t see that as a reason to prefer one over the other.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is: Like a Pro Bowler. As in, as if.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m willing to accept why some people might are not yet ready to rule out the possibility of Quinn being a good pro QB. But how can one say: “When will this organization admit that they have wholly BOTCHED the development of Quinn as a rookie?” When Mangini and company (those in the organization who develop players now) were not even their to botch when Quinn was a rookie.
Not to mention, Romeo and company were coaching a pro-bowl effort Derek Anderson, any coach trying to win would have started Anderson.
I just can’t see how someone could blame any coaching staff for the lack of development from Quinn, especially Mangini.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you are saying is, the Browns must accept responsibility for Brady Quinn´s arrested development, his stunted growth as an NFL quarterback? If so, what is the consequence? Retiring him as never happened, or keeping him because we feel so sorry for him?
Itssssss the precioussssss, no one elsssssezzzz gets him workingzzzzz.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The result is we have a Brady Quinn as one of three quarterbacks on the roster.
I don’t know what the heck you are talking about, but I am laughing at the use of the phrase “arrested development”.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
channelling Gollum now …. definitely a Brit
by talonk on Oct 12, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am fully aware of the unavoidable circumstances that led to both Quinn and Anderson’s playing time heading into 2009. I just think that 10 quarters is not enough time to warrant a change after either guy “won” the competition. That winner should have been given 8 games minimum, especially in a developmental year. The only justification for pulling Quinn at that point was a “win now” mentality. The trade of Braylon proves that’s not our mentality. Thus, give one guy 8 games, no matter what (like DA got last year, despite horrific play), and if he has developed and is performing, let him continue to do that. If he’s stunk up the joint, give the other guy 8 games. This way, no matter what you finally, once and for all, know what you have and can plan accordingly this off season. We cannot accomplish this now.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, and pretty much what I’ve said here more than once.
As for justification, I can see a certain desperation to get something going, to win a game, to placate the fanbase a bit and take the edge off the ‘Kill Mangini!’ movement that has been growing up. Unfortunately, although that’s been accomplished, the team’s situation at QB is now seriously stunted.
The short term benefit is there from putting in DA, but so is the long term damage. This whole mess doesn’t seem to fit in with the ‘reduce drama, add depth, and keep rebuilding’ mold of most of Mangini’s moves….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this isn’t baseball. if quinn had shown flashes of being a good qb I would agree with you, but players that look that awful don’t develop
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
completely disagree.
Drew Brees looked not-very-good for a couple of years.
Not that Quinn is going to turn in to Brees, it’s just that “never say never” thing again.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Categorical statements are dangerous things. It just doesn’t seem to me that player development at any position is that simple.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 13, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was on the bold side to make the move after 10 quarters. But 8 games was too long last year. Certainly there is a happy medium.
That said, I still think we see Quinn start more games as a Brown- with or without any injuries.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I understand your position more clearly now. And we’ll have to agree to disagree, which is fine. Although, I’m not sure that is exactly what Zesty meant when he called out the “organization.”
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering he said: “as a rookie.”
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure, blame DA for NINE dropped passes.
by Denarchy on Oct 12, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why???
Because they almost beat Cinci and beat the bills…but I’ve not given up on Quinn, but I think he needed to slow down and regroup. He was really jittery out there and I think the lay off will do him good. I don’t think Anderson is the answer long term, but Quinn will get another chance in the near future, and that’s when he’ll prove himself.
by psch811 on Oct 13, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What were the weather conditions today by the way?
-40 & 200mph winds with 2 yards visibility?
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
DA VS QUINN
each qb has had 10 quarters.
here are the stats.
DA: 39/84 46% 378 yards 2 TD (includes rushing) 5 int. Has scored 29 points.
Quinn: 45/74 60.8% 400 yards 1 TD 3 int. Has scored 26 points.
DA should have been benched today. he went 1/8 in the 1st half with 16 yards. quinn was pulled going 6/8 with i don’t remember how many yards. i know the drops did have an effect on DA’s stats today, but overall… they aren’t that much different from quinn’s.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The drops apparently (I can’t watch the game live) had a big impact on the first half- 4 or 5 clear drops.
he did try another 10 or so in the second half though… what happened there?
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how about for DAs 10 quarters we use the first half of next game instead of that joke of a second half he played where he was just chucking prayers trying to get us back in the game.
On another note, our running game has been notably improved under DA. This is probably due to the fact that defenses have to take him seriously so they can’t stack the box.
most importantly however: quinn 0-3 anderson 1-1
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or the fact that we’ve played Cinci and Buffalo, not Minnesota, Denver and Baltimore?
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cinci is not to be taken lightly, their damn good this year, and just beat Baltimore.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hard to know what to think of them. Pretty much tied us, got last second wins against Pitt and Baltimore and Green Bay. Flukey loss to Denver. They could very easily be 0-5 and very easily be 5-0.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
funny that you included denver as one of the good teams but were quick to dismiss cinci, even though they are both teams having good seasons after sucking last year
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cincy is one lucky play away from being 5-0. They also have beaten both the Ravens and Steelers.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I made not judgments about who was good and not in my post.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“no judgments”
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then what was the point of your post? why bother pointing out who they played if you weren’t saying one group was better than the other?
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The (unmentioned) point of my post was mainly highlighting Minny and Baltimore, as they are obviously top 5 defenses in the NFL. You chose to single out Denver.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, you can add in the drops and the ravens game to make DA’s stats seem better. (i still think that 3 ints in 1 half is ridiculous, even if they’re down by 50). i don’t favor either of them, but if you look at the stats as a whole, there is not that much difference in their individual performance.
i agree with notthatnoise, though, on the fact that the running game has improved under DA.
if DA plays like this vs. pitt, they’ll be looking at a 28+ point differential.
the QB for next year is not on this roster. trade one of them, get the highest draft pick you can for him, and draft a qb in the early rounds. both DA and quinn are backups in the nfl.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Much more than I mourn our hopes for a decent win-loss record this year, I mourn our hopes that this year would provide some definitive answers to our quarterback question.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How would sacks also factor into this? Is it that Quinn had less protection, or just that he held onto the ball too long?
by NM Dawg on Oct 11, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Facing inestimably better defenses.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pass rush was NOT an issue against the ravens. the defenses may have been better, but quinn held the ball way too long.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Brady started today we lose, enough said.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how in the world could BQ have done worst? Some of those dropped passes maybe would have been caught since BQ doesn’t have a laser arm like DA
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How in the world can you say that. You just hate Quinn, jeez, don’t show your hand at all, goodness.
So Quinn would of gone 1 of 17? please.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinnn would have gone 5-25 for 3 less yards
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do hate Quinn. Hated him since college.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate him in the pros because he sucks, and drafting him hurt thus franchise.
I didn’t think we should have drafted him on April 28th, 2007 and still think that now.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how you can say this. 2/17 is almost impossible to top in terms of sucktitude.
This win was because of ST, running the ball and defense. Tressel would have busted a chub watching this one.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This win was because of ST, running the ball and defense.
I agree whole heartedly.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it can be argued we don’t run the ball nearly as well with quinn, and yes the running game does have to do with the qb
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think it can be argued we don’t run the ball nearly as well with quinn
How? It’s not like DA was making the defense work.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, this makes no sense. Harrison was dinged up and so was Davis, but that was Quinns fault to I guess.
Funny Browns win a God awful game that the offense was basically Lewis, special Teams and the D, lost in when Anderson on 5 straight possessions could not get the team even in field goal range, has become the “leader” the man on this team.
Listen I am not saying Quinn is a Pro Bowl QB, but it is funny how he is getting blamed for the running game, the offense, he sucks, he would of thrown 3 picks today, and the Browns would of lost the game today if Quinn was at QB. It is quite comical how he has become the whipping boy on a bad team.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
However, there is no way that after being uncompetitive in 3 games with Quinn, that we would switch back to him after being competitive in both games with Anderson.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. The real question is what happens when we play some real teams and DA represents like he did today.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I agree Dorn, DA is not going anywhere unless he gets hurt. I find it odd that Quinn went from Kosar to Wynn in 10 quarters in the eyes of many, when it was the whole team was bad. Have to admit the “D” has played quite well the last two games that Quinn had nothing to do with.
by Grockcubs on Oct 12, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly understand the logic of this, but the truth is that the Browns were competitive in this game despite Anderson.
by JustBob on Oct 12, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, I say that because I still think that wind or no wind, he was putting too much on his short passes.
by JustBob on Oct 12, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that this is close to “HE’S A WINNER!” but I think Dorn’s point is that we won’t go back to Quinn, not about what we should do.
The receivers dropped a TON of balls against Buffalo. That one to Royal was a TD.
I didn’t get to see the game in which we actually scored points this season, but I do know Anderson was the QB for that game. The other game that DA started, we won. I don’t think Mangini and co will go away from him—especially since they’ve already flip-flopped once.
The whole offense needs to get better. Except Joe Thomas.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just saw today that Royal is playing with a broken ring finger on his right hand, which might have something to do with that bad drop (combined with the fact that he’s not a very good receiver). This begs the question of why he’s being thrown to so much.
by drjeo on Oct 13, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Royal should just stop getting open then, dammit!
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 13, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It definitely doesn’t help him, but he’s dropped balls this whole season.
by rufio on Oct 13, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leader
It might just be me, but the team seems to stay behind Anderson even when he plays poorly.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 11, 2009 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The quarterback most certainly does affect the running game. if the defense doesn’t have to worry about the qb throwing further than 8 yards, they can stack the box every single play. defenses have to worry about DA stretching the field, and thus can only put 7 in the box (most of the time). so unless you think that extra person doesn’t matter, the qb plays a big part in the running game.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess what? If a QB is 2 for 17,the defense isn’t worried about him throwing the ball no matter how far he can throw the ball. If you think I am wrong, look at Oakland.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But Russell can throw 359 yards on his knees! HIS KNEES!
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he can eat 359 hot dogs in one sitting!
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes they are, it only takes one bomb to score, so the defense always has to be honest. watch the bills game, until the browns were trying to run clock, they had seven guys in the box.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The defense doesn’t have to be honest if they don’t believe your passing game is a threat.
You could have Peyton Manning at QB but if you had Dorn and myself at WR, BQIB at TE in a mooncamping designed offense, no defense would care.
On Sunday, our passing game was not a threat.
Additionally, a defense can stack the box, and still play a relatively safe zone coverage. A cover-3 is pretty easy to run with 8 in the box. Teams with really good/fast safeties can run a cover-2/cover-4 with 8 in the box; I’ve seen Polamalu threaten blitz in the A gap pre-snap and make it back to cover the WR’s “go” route.
Teams like the Ravens or Eagles can put 8 in the box, and defend the pass by blitzing the hell out of you.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A mooncamping offense wouldnt include Manning, he isnt a fullback.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You dont think I would be a good TE? Sure I might not be a good blocker at 135 pounds, but I think I might be taller than Dorn and Rufio.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am 6’ 1 1/2", 175. Maybe I should be the TE.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
6’4, 185. Unfortunately I have no strength.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be fun to assign positions to the regualar posters on DBN.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WR is the only football position I could play.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m 5’10 175 but I play the real football. I could be our kicker I guess.
by fwembt on Oct 12, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That probably goes for most of us. Safety or DB, maybe. Maybe some RBs.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could play safety but I have no top speed. My acceleration isnt bad, but I dont have anything after that.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guard.
6’-4" 330.
I played RT in highschool. If anyone hit me now, I’d break.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice, we really need some O and D line help/
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am 6’ 375.
So in other words, tailback.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
am 5-10 190, so I could be a CB I guess.
In my youth, I once ran a 4.6 40 in street shoes without any stretching, prep etc. So with training I might have been a 4.5 guy. But that was also 20 years ago too.
by talonk on Oct 13, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sounds like a common please for the browns, no?
by themadlibs on Oct 13, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe TE? 6’1 260. Pretty slow, but decent hands.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
6’-1/2’’ A one time I had speed and acceleration. I always saw my self playing strong safety and return specialist. (Love to hit and swarm to the ball, blitz occasionally.)
Chris Gamble was my idle in 7th grade (2002 NC run) playing CB / WR / KR. Still one of my all time favorite Buckeyes.
by Simmsinns on Oct 13, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
mooncamping would say we’re all fullbacks.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
6’1 135 for me. Slot receiver or third down back.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m 6’1", 190. Good size for a slot receiver or big corner. Unfortunately, I left any semblance of speed well in the past. However, I volunteer to play the National Anthem on the trumpet.
by drjeo on Oct 13, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I could be QB and someone would make the name ‘BradyQuinnisBeastisBeast’
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 13, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And remember that Quinn played much tougher Defenses
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because that stat tells us anything at all about their play.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop it. Just stop. You can’t judge a QB solely by wins and losses — that’s just ignorance.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. However, as someone who was once a Quinn supporter, he was really that bad in the first 2.5 games. Even after Anderson’s performance today, I feel more comfortable with him.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, that conclusion is totally valid. But pointing to W-L is just about the stupidest way to get there.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. I’m not saying Quinn should be starting, just that quoting their W-L record as a starter is completely illogical.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
9 drops today alone. 9. that is beyond futility from the receiving corps.
and beyond the stats, you can’t honestly tell me—even considering that quinn played against better defenses—that these two quarterbacks look even remotely similar. quinn moved the offense zero, had no accuracy, looked nervous, and got worse the more he played (SSS, granted).
at least anderson shows some spark, delivers the ball quickly, often down the field, and has the potential to move the offense (e.g. the royal drop). they seriously look like they’re playing different games.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The SSS is everything. It completely eliminates any negative evaluation. I’m sorry, it just does.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i realize the import of SSS, but it takes on less significance when speaking relatively. anderson and quinn have had essentially the exact same amount of playing time thus far…you tell me who has looked the better qb?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anderson has looked better at times, though certainly not yesterday. Also, they have played an unequal schedule. There is no arguing that Quinn played against tougher defenses than Anderson has so far. Of course, they both played against Baltimore, with very poor results. So, what is the actual basis for comparison? The team has played better recently, so maybe that’s Anderson, although I don’t really see the correlation.
by drjeo on Oct 12, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to both you and dr. j…i’m like flabbergasted that you both say it’s borderline. to me, watching anderson play quarterback is like fine art compared to the play that quinn put forth in his 2.5 games. you don’t feel like there’s a substantial difference?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel Quinn had no confidence in himself, he was “skiddish” and safe. The offense was so dysfunctional, I was not in the least surprised to see him get benched.
DA has played 10 quarters since. While the offense seemed a little more competent with him under center, I can’t find any reason to give DA the credit for it. 3 INTs in a half is an embarrassment, I don’t care the circumstances. Those were 3 really bad, terrible detrimental plays. He still runs himself into sacks, holds the ball too long has no touch on anything less than 10 yards, and doesn’t handle adversity well. Maybe there were parts of the passing game that wasn’t Anderson’s fault, but to say that he looked good- in any sense-better than anything at all- is just using too much bias, in my mind. He was bad. The only exception is the pass that Royal dropped down the seam. I don’t think Quinn makes that throw. Otherwise, Anderson was bad. Really bad.
A lot has been made of the drops. Yes, at least 3 were inexcusable. I mean maybe he should have been 6-17 or 7-17. But most of those were for less than 10 yards. His YPA was terrible, and would have been terrible.
Turd sandwich. Giant douche. We have two QBs playing really poorly. Regardless of what has happened in the past (Anderson’s 2007) or either of their potential for the future, they are both really bad right now.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m not saying either is good, by any stretch. but to me, anderson looks to be the more competent pro qb right now, and it’s not close.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too, and I was a big Quinn backer coming in to the season.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t see the Cincy game, so all I can offer is that DA looked awful-er than BQ against Buffalo.
Considering we scored 20 against Cincy, I’d bet that’s the one game DA’s had that is making you guys feel this way.
That sample size is far too small for both QBs to make a good comparison right now.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the analysts are still searching, whether 2 of 17 for 23 yards is a record of some sort.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 8:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look, there were certainly some outright drops. But there were also some passes thrown way too hard for the distance. Some QBs end up with more drops because of lack of touch and/or lack of accuracy. We saw a lousy effort by the receivers today, but you have to look at Anderson’s role as well.
by drjeo on Oct 12, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
9 dropped passes. You blame the QB? Ok, that makes sense. I thought receivers were there to catch the ball.
by Denarchy on Oct 12, 2009 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t get to juiced about this game. Broke a long streak. I will never be sold on Anderson. Who knows who will QB this team next year. Sign McNabb.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 4:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m actually still very surprised that Quinn has panned out to be so awful.
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So after 10 quarters of Football Quinn is awful? really.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well getting beaten out by DA isn’t great; looking as inept as he did (even against great defences) is worse.
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we’ve forgotten preseason and last year already? really.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awful is putting it very lightly. He was worse than awful.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that is the world we live in. The Browns are maybe a 4 win team, give Quinn 10 quarters of football, Tell him he sucks, he is awful, and replaced by Dan Montana who has thrown 5 picks in 10 quarters, has a passer rating of 15.5, wonderful 2 for freaking 17 ( yes with drops, which happens in every freaking NFL game) and he deserves to be the QB for ever.
Hey I am not saying Quinn is the answer, however if you think after 10 quarters of football and can say he got a fair shake well then I guess we all should be fired from our jobs.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Hey I am not saying Quinn is the answer, however if you think after 10 quarters of football and can say he got a fair shake well then I guess we all should be fired from our jobs.”
DA has gotten way more opportunities than quinn. mangini pulled out quinn when he was 6/8 and 30something yards. DA was 1/8 with 16 yards against a much much worse defense. if that would've been quinn out there, he would've been benched.by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To correct you, it was a much, much, MUCH worse Defense.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to people saying ten quarters isn’t enough, as someone who has played a lot of football in his life, if you can’t show ANYTHING positive in 2.5 games, not to mention the preseason or practices, you probably can’t play. this isn’t baseball.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is completely and wholly wrong in every single aspect (perhaps not the “played a lot” part… but that’s probably wrong too).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, even as someone who is by no means bummed that they decided to go away from quinn, to say you get a good look at a player in 2.5 games is ridiculous.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it wasn’t just 2.5 games, it was college, every preseason game he’s played, and every practice this year, plus 2-3 games last year (though I hesitate to count those). He NEVER showed anything as a pro. It would be different if he had shown any flashes of being a productive qb, but he hasn’t.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In 2008 and healthy, Quinn’s offense averaged 29.5 points per game. nothatnoiseFAIL.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to add . . . you are completely wrong.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
D.A. isn’t the answer either. WE HAVE TWO BACK-UP QBs!
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sam bradford, colt mccoy, zac robinson, tony pike… take your pick
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradford isn’t worth the 1st rounder if Suh, Eric Berry, or Taylor Mays are still available IMO. I really don’t like trading down either if either of those three are available.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think they may draft a qb in the 2nd round. colt mccoy will most likely not fall to the early 2nd round but you never know.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colt McCoy has a good chance of falling to the 2nd actually. If you really like Zac Robinson we have 2 6th rounders.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they’re predicting robinson to fall to the late second or 3rd.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a few sites were, i’m not saying that’s what i think.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ever-narrowing infighting here is sad but inevitable. Neither BQ or DA will ever look great with this offense. But obsessing over BQ and complaining about DA after a win is just redolent of a disfunctional family.
No diamonds in the rough. It’s rough through and through. Please call off the conspiracy dogs. We’ll probably need both QBs next week anyway
by DPS on Oct 12, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but i’ve also seen predictions of being taken in the 4th or 5th. so i guess it’s up in the air. osu has texas, texas tech, and oklahoma coming up, so we’ll see how he handles those. looking at his stats, he seems like a gunslinger with good accuracy, but also very mobile. he does throw to dez bryant, but we’ll see how he is without him. i’ll admit, i haven’t watched him a ton other than nationally televised games.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I have watched him, his accuracy seems off
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm. well maybe the ones i watched he was just having a good game. or i wasnt paying enough attention.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its just my opinion, but he can throw a few good passes but then will throw in a bad one way too often.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what do you think about pike? only time i’ve watched him this season is against rutgers.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good against the Big Least, Excellent height, poor bulk, productive, could have better mechanics, a better arm, better mobility, but not deficient in those areas.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plays against weak competition with a spread offense. I need to see some more of his film though.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I almost agree with emily, the only thing I’d say is that they could only play 2nd string on teams like Oakland, Buffalo, or Detroit, most other places they would end up just like Charlie Frye, career third stringers.
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 4:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
DA and Quinn look like Joe Montana compared to Charlie Frye.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn looks like Montana, DA looks like Marino.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Charlie Frye in this analogy looks like Charlie Frye.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Browns still have 2 back up quarterbacks, at best, and maybe only third string on a good team. Mangini can’t change this,this year. It will need off season signings and/or draft choices.
Quinn couldn’t win the tough games at Notre Damn and Anderson had one season where he made the ProBowl, but only because of injuries to the quarterbacks ahead of him.
by Paul Fulton on Oct 11, 2009 5:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Im so tired of people saying Quinn couldnt win in college. They know nothing
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
He lost quite a bit.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 11, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is as relevant to his pro career as the current Dow Jones average.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strange
I don’t remember saying it was relevant. I just pointed out he lost quite a bit. Honestly he hasn’t won in the NFL either. If Anderson is so bad, why does he keep getting picked over Quinn?
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 11, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the eleventy billionth time, winning and losing tells very little about the quality of the quarterback — especially winning and losing in college. That means absolutely nothing when evaluating ability to play in the NFL.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need a good image for this fallacy. Something like the “Huh?” Monkey.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please, lord no! I never want to see that image again!
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy above said quinn win tough games in college
Someone responded that he was tired of people saying Quinn couldn’t win in college. I stated he lost quite a bit. I never said it had any bearing on his pro career.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 12, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So did Jay Cutler. Tom Brady couldn’t beat out Dew Henson. Peyton Manning couldn’t beat the Vols. Joe Flacco couldn’t beat out Tyler Palko. This all has so very much to do with the NFL.
Quick, does someone have Ken Dorsey’s phone number?
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t Peyton Manning play for the Vols?
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I said the same thing under you.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay Cutler and Big Ben didnt lead their teams to greatness either.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quinn couldn’t win the tough games at Notre Damn
this is such a dumb thing to say, especially since it’s completely meaningless to his ability as an NFL qb.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The last 4 Browns games were worse than this game.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant as a cumulative effort of suckage on both sides.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick observations:
The Good:
- Interior offensive line. Mack, Fraley, Steinbach. They were pretty solid despite a slow RB and lack of creativity in the play calling. They also gave DA some time to look downfield.
- The running game. Lewis played well. I really liked Harrison’s wide sweep and the little read option play to Cribbs.
- Pass rush. Still didn’t get to Edwards as much as I would like, but Wimbley is border line consistent and border line good.
- Secondary. They played ok. They didn’t get beat, didn’t make a lot of plays. But contained some decent weapons. Could be that Trent Edwards really sucks though.
- Run D. Held Jackson and Lynch to 99 yards on 30 carries.
- Special tems. Zastidul is awesome. The coverage was great. We have about 4 special teams aces on coverage and the best returner in the league. And after watching the Bengals botch another extrapoint attempt, I think we need to be thankful for Pointbriand and Zastidul as holder. Also, big cred to Cundiff for playing solidly (besides the last kickoff) in Dawson’s absence.
The bad:
- The passing game. The protection was fine. I don’t know how you much you want to blame DA (too many throws batted down at the line, a terrible INT, held the ball too long a couple times, missed a couple open guys), the playcalling (very simple, didn’t give many chances for the players to make plays), the roster (2 rookies, 1 guy that has 3 or 4 practices under his belt on the team, a guy that’s not quick enough to get open and a bad pass-catching TE), or the receivers – MoMass, Cribbs, Harrison, Royal all had at least one obvious drop that anyone should catch. However you divide the blame- that was a historically bad performance.
- Cribbs- His one run was awesome, but he had a bad game overall. Muffed a punt, didn’t make any plays in the return game, dropped a screen. You can only blame Daboll so much- Cribbs needs to make the most out of his opportunities.
- Those commenting on DBN and Browns fans not happy with the win. I mean really? Defense played a great game, Zastidul put on a clinic, and the running game was really good. AND WE WON!
- Playcalling/offensive scheme. Just a lack of creativity.
- QB rushes. I really like the 2-deep man-under base defense. I think our corners are good enough and LBs are quick enough- And it seems like we can get decent pressure with 4 guys. But the glaring weakness of this defense is the QB scramble up the middle. It gave the game to the Bengals last week and Edwards hurt us this week.
-
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You are so correct
and we have been competitive two weeks in a row..
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
by Juannieboy on Oct 11, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those commenting on DBN and Browns fans not happy with the win. I mean really? Defense played a great game, Zastidul put on a clinic, and the running game was really good. AND WE WON!
Totally agree. We can crap on the offense all day long, but we should be pumped about this game. The defense and ST played a complete game that we haven’t seen from them in at least two years.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. If a team wins a 45-42 game with great offense and no defense the fans are all excited, but if a team wins 6-3 with no offense but a great defense then everyone complains that we sucked. Our offense sucked, but our defense and special teams were both outstanding. That’s 2/3 of the game.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Special teams is not 1/3 of the game. 10-15%, tops.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell that to Buffalo right now. ST have cost them two games. Today and the opening Monday night game.
And Jim Tressel just MF’ed you for saying that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’ve had this discussion before, but you are very wrong… still.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you think special teams is equally relevant to winning in football as offense and defense, then you know very little about the sport. It’s like saying defense is as important as pitching and hitting in baseball.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 11, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
About 20% of the pure number of plays were on special teams today- under 1/3- in pure numbers. And if you think the first down runs were anywhere near as important as the field-position changing punts, not to mention the points being scored- well I’m not sure you have a grasp on what turns a game.
Every special teams play is huge and has a much higher probability of impacting the game than a random play on offense or defense.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look around the league at the best special teams units, and look around at some of the worst. There’s practically an inverse proportion to W-L record vs. good special teams.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had a long response typed out and it didn’t post.
My gist was that special teams can be overwhelmed by incredibly good or incredibly bad units in one of the other phases of the game. And the differentiation in special teams is admittedly a lot less in the NFL than it is at any other level. But the special teams are still responsible for huge amount of yardage and points. And being really good or really bad is a huge deal. The Titans and Jets are two examples of teams who have won/lost largely because of really good/bad special teams.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
t special teams can be overwhelmed by incredibly good or incredibly bad units in one of the other phases of the game.
I thought that was exactly what kwoog was arguing?
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats fine. If a team is very good on offense and very good on defense, their ST’s can suck and win.
But to write off ST’s as 10% of football is crazy.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we are just arguing as to what the significance of special teams is. Sure, special teams can be overcome by the other units, but special teams can also do the overwhelming. I.e., the Browns winning today despite a very very bad offense.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree there, because without our defense also holding Buffalo, none of those special teams plays matter.
If we drop a million punts at the 1 (like Zastudil did) it doesn’t mean anything if we let them march down the field and into the end zone—even once.
Special teams definitely contributed today—a lot—but I don’t think they were overwhelming. And even if they were able to overwhelm, how often does that happen in a pro game?
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we drop a million punts at the 1 (like Zastudil did) it doesn’t mean anything if we let them march down the field and into the end zone—even once.
Your over looking something. The ST’s putting the ball at the one took Buffalo out of their comfort zone, the shotgun hurry-up mode. This is “great defense”, and it was’ but the ST set the table for those events.
Either way, you need both elements for a win like today.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, you don’t.
If those punts go for touchbacks but the defense is dominant and holds to a 3-and-out, we get the same result; a punt and the ball back.
Phenomenal ST, average D < Phenomenal D, average ST
Having good ST helps the other two phases—a lot—but it isn’t as important as the other two phases of the game.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to go all Jim Tressel, but do you understand that ST’s are controlled turnovers? The amount of yardage that is flipped and exchanged on Special teams every week is insane.
How many games has Josh Cribbs kept us in? (Pittsburgh in 07). What about ST costing us games? (Oakland in 07).
Chicago went to the Super Bowl in 07 with one of the best Special teams units of all time.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Pittsburgh actually won the Super Bowl last year with one of the worst. Kickoffs/punts rarely provide much, other than +/- 10-15 yards in field position. That’s meaningless if you can’t stop somebody, or can’t drive the ball. I mean, seriously, 1/3 of the game? It’s so obviously false as to be self evident.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, it’s not 1/3 of the game, but it’s much more than 10%. I’d say 20-25% is about right.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kickoffs/punts rarely provide much, other than +/- 10-15 yards in field position
Think about that. Lets assume your right about the 10-15 yards. If you have superior punt coverage team, as the Browns do, and they punt 9 times, like they did today, that could be (by your estimation) 135 yards of field position. Does that sound silly now?
That is more yards than Jamal ran for today. Special teams are very important. They, along with turnovers (after all a punt or kickoff is just a controlled turnover), are the great equalizers in football. Name a huge college upset that didn’t have a huge ST play or turnovers? ST’s change football games every week. Buffalo is two foolish ST plays away from being 3-2. That is a big deal.
I mean, seriously, 1/3 of the game? It’s so obviously false as to be self evident.
Ask Buffalo if it is meaningless. Or what about this game. Or Reggie Bush winning a Monday Night game by himself.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like to know the cumulative record of teams that have punted nine times in a game.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have looked everywhere. I am sure it is quite low.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we all know about the yardage exchanged and points scored on ST.
I think the real issue is the VORU (value over replacement unit, yeah I made it up) from top to bottom in the league.
If the VORU between special teams units makes a difference of 50 yards and 6 points/game, that’s almost nothing when compared to the value of a good defense versus our defense last year (an awful defense). Its also nothing compared to the value of a good offense over ours this year.
In other words, I would trade our ST (one of the better units in the league, IMO) for the worst ST unit in the league if I got the Colts’ or Saints’ offense in return.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can understand that reasoning. My personal belief is that the major momentum turning moments come on ST’s. Big hits, big returns, TO’s etc.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but how often does it happen in the pros? And how momentum-changing is it when your defense can’t stop the other guy and your offense cant score?
See: OSU vs. Florida
Special teams are an opportunity to make a play, but I don’t think anyone has won a game entirely because of them. I don’t think you are arguing that, but I think STs are more dependant on the O and D than the O and D are on STs. So I am going under 33.3%, probably around 20-25%.
We made several plays today, but they wouldn’t have meant a damn thing if our defense didn’t hold Buffalo to 3 points.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I look at it like this. If your defense is strong and your special teams are strong and your offense is weak, your going to win some games.
If your offense and defense are strong, but your ST’s are weak, your going to win some games.
But if your ST’s are weak and offense or defense are weak, your going to lose most games.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be a jerk, but can you start correctly using “you’re”? Just easier to read, and your grammar is flawless other wise.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not going to lie. It has always been a hang-up for me. Just start typing to quick.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just start typing to quick.
I don’t know if you did this on purpose, but that’s funny.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still say O is more important than ST and D is more important than ST.
Your ST have to be insanely good and your D has to be insanely good to win a lot of games in the NFL if your offense is as bad as ours has looked.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me a defense over an offense.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
20, 40, 40 (percentages) is conceivable, but I still don’t think ST is half as important as O or D, for many of the reasons you’ve made in this thread.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is nothing bigger about a big return than a 45 yard bomb… or a 20 yard QB scramble for a first on 4th down… or a sack/fumble… or a pick six. The difference is in quantity, not quality. And quantity-wise, “big things” happen a lot more often on D or O than they do on special teams.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Oct 12, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can respect that view point.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, VORU is what I was getting at above- the difference in the NFL just isn’t as great as it is at the College, High school or even lesser professional leagues.
And I didn’t really consider that at first. Generally in football, special teams are just so important. Your talking every extra point and every field goal, that’s a lot of points. Ask the Bengals how it feels to have every one of those plays be a huge adventure. They’ve overcome it somehow, but that long snapper has cost them about a dozen points this year, by himself.
You are right- in the NFL, usually, that difference is minimized.
If I had to put a percentage on it for the NFL, I’d say 25-30%.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the 2-deep man under defense in 3rd (or 4th) and long:
We really should be a little less predictable and sometimes give zone looks in those situations. If we had the middle linebacker in zone coverage we could have stopped the 2 rushes that have hurt us the past 2 weeks.
by Bumblyjack on Oct 11, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it seems on 3rd down we are either in a zone-blitz or the 2-deep man under. I would like some mixing it up. Maybe drop a d-lineman in a short zone to help on the crossing routes and watch the QB.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We actually did drop a DL into coverage on one of the scrambles. I think it was one near the end of the game when Edwards didn’t quite make it to the marker for the 1st.
Containment, discipline, and hustle by our pass rushers will also help.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me get this strait:
So we lose to the Bengals and it’s a moral victory?
But we win vs. the Bills and it’s not worth celebrating?
By that logic, losses are good and wins are bad? You people can’t be serious.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just because it was quite possibly the worst game ever doesn’t mean it’s not worth celebrating…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m happy they won… but not how they won. should’ve played much better and won.
but hey, beggars can’t be choosers. i’m sure if they go 1-15 people will be damn happy they won this game.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY! A win is still a win no matter how you do it and is absolutely worth celebrating.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see “kyle orton’s freak pass to whatshisface in 1st game of the season” lol
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I beleive our worst game ever wa a 42-0 loss to the steelers (Frye’s last game as a Brown)
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this was pretty bad back in '99
9/12 L 0-43 Pittsburgh Steelers 73,138
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 11, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is honestly a case of one team not sucking as bad as the other. I celebrate the win, but I chastise the suckitude
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow! Surprising! You take no solace in victory.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does playing great defense count as “sucking”?
And I’m soooo surprised that you’re complaining about this game. Is there anything the Browns can possibly do to make you happy?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and they lost!!
Its funny, when the browns do good they lose(last week) and win they do horrible they win(this week). I’m excited to see what happens next week
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, I’m done. You cannot be pleased.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright, I’m done. You cannot be pleased….
…by regression
by Rocland on Oct 12, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Its funny, when the browns do good they lose(last week) and win they do horrible they win(this week).”
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They did that last week and you weren’t happy. It’s obvious that you will never be satisfied no matter what this team does. I just don’t know why you need to bring your constant whining and complaining here. . . take that to cleveland.com where you’ll have plenty of company.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is at least your second grammatical error in this thread. C’mon man, you are better than that.
Agree with your point, though. A W is a W.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is at least your second grammatical error in this thread. C’mon man, you are better than that.
Haha, unfortunately I’m not. I have countless typos. The warst port is thot I natice them obaut 2 secands ofter pressing post.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched this one at Buffalo WW south of Columbus
and the Browns fans here were cheering like mad. Even though we suck I was pleased, but not proud, we won. Perhaps the taunts from the Bengals fans at work will not be as painful had we lost
The “roughing the passer” on Williams was a load and I thought Lewis got in. Refs always suck worse than any team in the NFL
Robert Royal seems intent on taking over Braylon Edwards role of worst hands and most drops
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
by Juannieboy on Oct 11, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the roughing the passer crap is getting out of hand. There was a really bad one called on the Lions today too. I think they league is going to have to do something about it. It is becoming too much of an offensive weapon.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know what they expect defensive players to do. The laws of physics prevent them from stopping their momentum once they leap forward to tackle the QB just before he releases the ball. The call today on the Browns was ridiculous. It was a simple tackle; he didn’t lead with the head or hit the QB’s helmet or any of that.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. I mean, you can’t touch his head, even with your pinkie. You can’t hit him below the knees. You can’t lead with your head. (even though all these are valid and good tackles anywhere else on the field). And if you do manage to hit him in the proper areas, you can’t bring him down too hard or too quickly.
This is all complicated when you have QBs in the league like Rothlisberger who get out of arm takcles around the waist all the time.
I’m really considering writing a long, well-thought out letter to the NFL about this.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leading with your head isn’t a great idea. That’s a good way to get a concussion. Keep your head up when you tackle, unless you are leading with the shoulder or could get a hat on the ball.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but it is legal to lead with your head. Legal to touch other player’s helmets. Legal to tackle people by hitting them below the knees.
And the penalty today on Edwards—- well, there every football coach in America would use that play as a textbook way to finish a tackle. Facemask in the chest, drive through the hit, all the way to the ground.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, I definitely agree with you on your main point. I think Ray Lewis put it pretty well the other week.
And I was actually kinda surprised about this call because it wasn’t a Manning or Tom Brady or Brees taking the hit.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think one of the problems is there is no leeway in the rules.
It has nothing to do with the intent or level of violence of the hit. You touch them in forbidden areas or in the forbidden way, the refs have no choice but to throw the flag. And once you have that as the standard, it is tough for them to not get a little flag happy. I think that is what happened today, it was close to a driving-into-the-ground situation and close to a helmet-to-helmet hit, so he figured he’d better throw the flag.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
better to err on the side of protecting the quarterbacks too much than not enough.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine. But they have gone way passed protecting quarterbacks and it is obnoxious and detrimental to the game.
It has got so difficult to avoid that there is absolutely no deterrent effect. Williams would have hit Edwards just like he did today if you gave him 100 chances at it, flagging him every time- there was NOTHING else he could have done. It was a textbook hit.
It is absurd.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree that the williams call was a bit much, but i’ll disagree and say that he could have eased up and not slammed edwards to the turf in the manner he did. i bet there is some deterrent involved.
if you polled every player about protecting their qb, as opposed to all qb’s, you’d see a much different attitude from the nfl’s rank and file, in my opinion. the qb is the most important player on the team, and the most important position in the nfl. people are willing to live with a little bit of extra protection…and i don’t think it’s gotten to the point of overkill, personally.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t think he slammed him at all. He tackled the guy, and followed through with it. He just happens to weigh a lot and didn’t make an effort to avoid falling right on top of him. Should not have been a personal foul.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this was a terrible call given that the play happened in the end zone. The defense has to play aggressive in the opposite end zone if they have any chance at a safety. I think the safety is a really cool part of football and that defenses should be given a chance to make the play.
I looked at this one a few times on my DVR and I can’t see how a 300lb guy is supposed to change his trajectory in mid-air. Edwards held the ball too long and he should have paid the price. What if the pass had been a pump fake and Edwards had been sacked in the end zone? How is the defensive player supposed to play this? He can’t tippy-toe up to the QB and say “boo!”
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It almost cost the Browns. This week, huge plays happened in the Steelers game and Colts game. Last week Brady used it as a weapon. It is out of hand.
You can, and the league has, protected the QB’s without this outrageous rules.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brady pointing at a guy that almost hit him was ridiculous. It’s one thing if the defender actually makes contact, but to point for a guy that nearly hit you is absurd.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If your facemask is in the QB’s chest, how can you see whether or not he has the ball?
What if you let him go there or ease up, and it’s Big Ben, and he scrambles for 15 and the first down?
That’s not football.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always remeber Mathias Kiwanuka letting Vince Young go early a couple years back, and he ran for the winning score.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember Wimbley letting Roethlisberger go early a couple of years ago because he didn’t want a Roughing call. Big Ben was laughing after the play.
by bbstirrd on Oct 13, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never looked at that way. But perhaps that is how some quarterbacks manage what look like absolute circus broken tackles to remain up and ready to throw again. (i.e. SB 42)?
by Simmsinns on Oct 13, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can understand that, but the NFL has passed that point. Big time.
These weak ass calls are starting to decide some games. Indy got 30 free yards on Sunday night right before half and got a back breaking TD.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The taunts from the Bengals fans at work will be unbearable this week because they beat the Forces of Evil and Darkness in the Football Universe in Baltimore. People you didn’t even know were Bengals fans will be coming out of the woodwork because Bengals fans are frontrunners.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have never been a fan of the Bengals. But after “Hard Knocks” and seeing Zimmer in the locker room after the game, I was a Bengal fan for about 5 minutes.
Plus they beat the Ravens. Suck it Ray Ray.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m in Columbus too and I’ve heard so many “Who dey?” chants I want to be sick.
by Bumblyjack on Oct 11, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, me too. It’s better than being in Cincinnati, but it really is amazing. By the end of last year you couldn’t find a Bengals fan throughout the entire state of Ohio. Now they are all over the place. Their fan base has the most drastic and amazing fair-weather effect I’ve ever seen.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmmm. pittsburgh could compete with bandwagoning. i swear, their facebook fan group grew by like 25,000 after last season.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d imagine even after a losing season they’d fill up Heinz field and have a good representation across the midwest. Next time the Bengals lose 3 games in a row (this year or next)- I garuantee there are empty seats at PBS and you won’t see a Bengals jersey on the streets of any city- including Cincinnati.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some people are fans of the Cincinnati Bengals. But many, many more people are NOT fans of the Cincinnati Bengals.
Cincinnati is in Ohio, but its residents are all firmly planted in Kentucky. The chili there is overrated swill. I hated WKRP. Pete Rose is the sleaziest asshole mankind has ever produced. Joe Morgan made a name for himself there. Thanks for that, you bastards. This is town that had race riots EIGHT FUCKING YEARS AGO. I get having race riots forty years ago, or even twenty years ago. But in the 2000’s? Really? Christ.
Lest you feel bad for the Bengals, do keep in mind that they were a terribly annoying team back in the Sam Wyche era. The Who Dey chant. The Ickey Shuffle. Worst TD dance ever? Worst TD dance ever. All he did was take three steps to one side, then three steps to the other. DEBBIE ALLEN IS TURNING OVER IN HER GRAVE. Even the Bengals’ uniforms are enough to cause mass aggravation. And blindness.
Wideout Chris Henry will fuck your niece and not apologize for it. Running back Cedric Benson is so whiny, they should make him an honorary white person. It says a lot about your team when Chad Ochocinco can pull all the shit he’s pulled and still come out of it the most likable player on the squad.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the Bengals, and I think their fanbase is fickle and stinks. However, I love Cincinnati. Joe Morgan and Pete Rose were incredible baseball players, regardless of what they have done since. The race relations aren’t great and it is still a very oddly-conservative town- but it is getting better. There are a lot of beautiful and neat places in Northern Kentucky as well. I’ll rip on the Bengals all day, but I think the anti-Cincinnati stuff is a little overkill here.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
White people are whinier than other races?
by elsandito on Oct 11, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t quite understand this.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to see what would happen to the Steelers bandwagon if they were to face three or four straight years of suckitude. Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening to the current regime, which seems both hypercompetent, as well as damn lucky.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 12, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh. I can’t think of a more sh*t-ass team than the Bengals. You think Pittsburgh fans are rednecks!?! lol Try going to a Cincy game…GAH.
I’m sorry but their team, and fans are HORRENDOUS.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know – I think you are underselling the Pittsburgh fans here.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 12, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good analysis DaytonDog & Good point Simmsy. A win is a win and there were many good points out there- good defense (albeit against a poor O) and all-world special teams.
But that passing game wasn’t just bad was it? We haven’t had an answer yet- worst ever?
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 5:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it broke a 52-year record for least passing yards in browns history, i believe.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And league-wide? Has to be one of the lowest totals ever in the modern (pass happy) era?
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
idk about that. but i bet DA has the lowest passer rating in a single game. then again, things surprise you sometimes lol.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Garcia had a game with a 0.0 passer rating with us. And if you think that Derek Anderson blows, at least we aren’t paying him 63 some odd million.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i rather have DA over russel. i’m not arguing that, trust me lol.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And without a legit #1 receiver, don’t expect it to improve very much anytime soon. It also prevents us from getting the run game going. If we don’t have a QB or WR to keep the defense honest, they can just stack the box and shutdown the run game. Clearly B. Edwards had way more impact than a lot of people could have imagined.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could get it going without a #1, but it would require us to go 3- or 4-wide I think.
Today that wouldn’t have worked because I don’t think Buffalo would have respected the run out of a 3-wide formation. They just would have kept their base 4-3 personnel on the field because the elements and our suckitude would have helped them defend the pass.
The problem is, no one respects the pass when we go big with 2 TE, 2RB because Royal, Heiden, Vickers, and Lewis aren’t exactly matchup nightmares.
So until we figure out how to run out of a 3-wide formation or get the talent to be able to effectively pass out of our big sets, we won’t have a balanced offense and we will not look good.
Edwards or any other #1 makes a defense account for them, but you can take up some of that slack by being versatile and letting a defense know they have to be aware of every option you have out there.
Tom Brady had a good offense and still had a bunch of #2 WRs as targets, but you knew the offense would be smart, you knew all of them were threats to move the chains, you knew their tight ends were threats, and you knew they could run. And you knew they could run or pass out of any personnel group. I’m not sure Daboll is that good, which is really more of the problem than Braylon being gone.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fox half- time report..
more snickers about this game than can be found at Peter-Paul-Mounds
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
by Juannieboy on Oct 11, 2009 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And yet I bet if it were Ravens/Vikings, they would all be talking about how good the defenses were playing and making excuses for the players about the conditions.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely, the so called experts are total hypocrites.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats asinine. You out of anyone should know there is a difference between a good defensive game and a bad offensive game.
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunno. You have to learn to win the ugly ones, and Jamal & Jerome didn’t seem too bothered about the complete absence of a passsing game. And we were talking complete absence.
So it wasn’t ugly all over by any means- I’ve just never seen a win when on eparticular unit fails so spectacularly.
by LondonBrown on Oct 11, 2009 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we didn’t win this ugly one, Parrish made an absolutely retarded play and handed the browns the ball on the 20 with 30 seconds left. AFTER we failed to get the ball down the field. The only way we could have screwed that situation up is if we somehow lost 20 yards.
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re all line drives in the box score, dude. We won the game.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 11, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes we did win this one. We dominated 2 of the 3 aspects of football: Defense and Special Teams. If Parrish doesn’t botch that punt, we still have a good chance of winning. We were controlling field position and our defense wasn’t breaking at all. And we had the wind.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yea, our special teams own thats for sure. but we didn’t dominate D, more so their offense threw up over our D
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They struggled, and their line is young/not great. But we got pressure on the QB, stuffed a couple very talented RBs and never got beat deep by a couple good WRs. 3 points in the NFL is always a win for the Defense.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t get with that I’m sorry. Its not because I’m being hardheaded, but I can’t look at it shallow and see only a score. I see a O line who let go a top LT, with 2 rookies and a couple of scrubs. Who couldn’t protect or get a push for their RB. I also saw them with 10 false starts at HOME. Yea this was a win, but not a performance I can be proud of.
I was proud last week
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t just looking at the score. I was proud every time the Bills were forced to punt. Proud at the INT. Proud at the Pool break up in the endzone. Mike Adams staying with WRs on crossing routes and making tackles before the first down marker.
And more than just this game, I was proud that they were able to build off the glimpses that the defense has shown all year. Keeping with it til the last play and not wearing down despite not getting any help from the offense.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was proud last week
You were?!?!?!? That’s news to the rest of us!
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the situation was reversed then you would have said the Bills “made a play to win the game”. You just can’t say anything positive about the Browns, can you? That’s so sad.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 11, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the situation was reversed
I would have said we packaged the win for the bills. Its no different I criticize and praise equally
by Rocland on Oct 11, 2009 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
um..
Seems like you proved his point here, which I believe was that you can’t say anything positive about the Browns.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 11, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
false. you criticize ad infinitum, and praise zero.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you praise ad infinitum, criticize zero
by Rocland on Oct 12, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, he doesn’t. He’s criticized the Browns plenty for as long as he’s been on this blog.
When will you stop making things up whenever it suits your point?
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rocland fails to acknowledge the nuance that accompanies many a post here, and instead lumps us all into the “apologist” category.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If people have a problem with me not looking through a sea of crap just to find a justification or nonexistent silver lining, oh well thats not how i word.
Just how poeple find it annoying for me to criticize when I see fit, I find it annoying to see so many delusional fan justify nonsense and bad play. I find it annoying to make up “football” facts just to make sense of something that doesn’t makes sense, like this
Welcome to the National Football League. Play your 2 years on special teams and then you’ll get your chance on defense. That is how it works.
so as long as people do as they see fit regardless of how annoying, I’m going to comment as I see fit, regardless of how annoying
by Rocland on Oct 12, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
feel free to post the stuff that we see as “annoying”, that’s your right. just don’t make up supporting evidence, which you do a lot.
i have a question for you, though: why are you a browns fan? none (well, very few) of us around here are dumb enough to think that this team is anything but shitty, which you obviously support, but that’s not where the ride ends for (many of) us.
is it honestly fun for you to say that the bengals game was 100% negative b/c we didn’t win, and then turn around and say the bills game is 100% negative b/c we won a bad game? the offense looked good last week (harrison and momass), the defense and special teams looked good this week…yet you take literally zero positives out of those games. how is that a livable fan life?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I wasn’t criticizing your negativity as much as your failure to recognize that there is more nuance among the posters here than you are allowing for. We come here for football discussion, to point out positives and negatives alike. If there were 0 positives on the Browns, then we would be 0-5 and 100% guaranteed to finish 0-16. However, there are things that are good on the Browns, and a lot of things that are bad. We are here discussing those things on both sides.
You continue to group everyone against you as if somehow you are the only person that recognizes the team is bad and the rest of DBN is foolish and against you. Unfortunately, it really is not the case.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Alright, that quote was mine. It was directed at someone being overly critical of the Browns personnel decisions and disappointed that a 6th rounder hadn’t seen more time on defense.
This is about having a conversation and a dialogue. That doesn’t work when people just come on here to gripe senselessly and without wanting to have a conversation.
And you have consistently spouted off nonsense as fact. Where do you get off lecturing anyone else on this point.
Desean Jackson, Eddie Royal, Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, Breaston, Boldin, Calvin Johnson, Colston, Brandon Marshall, Santonio Holmes, Anthony Gonzo, Steve Smith, hell even Braylon Edwards all had success their rookie year if they were put directly into action
That’s you. And it was crap.
So to sum up our transactions with the Jets, we’ve given them their franchise QB and a probowl WR that requires a double team, for a 4th string QB, some backup LB’s, a young back-up quality safety, an average DE and a ST player? Also a 3 and 5 rounder which i’m sure we’ll make terrible use of.
Again you. Again wrong. Ignoring the extra picks we got during last year’s draft.
You guys on the other hand acted like this man was the second coming of jesus during the preseason, and now all of a sudden when the browns make a move with his he’s worth rags? You may say I complain but I’m realistic. I criticize when they make a stupid move. You on the other hand has justified every move this team has made, even though every single move has not helped the team in any way. Even though I’ve been right on pretty much every point I’ve made.
Now you are really getting in trouble. First, nobody on here thought much of this team. The predictions were anywhere between 4 and 9 wins, most of them between 5 and 8. So you were wrong. But the bigger problem is how self-righteous you are. Forgive us if everyone is skeptical of everything you write when you say stuff like this.
I’m going to stop for now- not that you have. You really have been so obnoxious the past week or so that I’m pretty sure nothing you say now will be taken seriously.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I am one of the most optimistic Browns fans out there, and even I criticize the team.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
since we’re all making stuff up, i just join along
by Rocland on Oct 12, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
More generalizations. . . . .
Since everyone here (but you, of course) is so stupid and blind in our support of the Browns, as you say, then why do you even bother reading this site and posting here? Nobody is forcing you to participate in our discussions. If everything we say is so wrong and none of us know what we’re talking about, then why waste your time discussing football with us? Do you enjoy telling everyone how wrong they are? Why don’t you find another website with constant negativity and then you can all whine together without having to worry what idiots like us think.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think everyone here saying “worst game ever” are forgetting one very big fact OUR D DIDN"T GIVE UP A TD! Stop whining and get over our lack of offense and celebrate the fact that our D kept us in the game and that our ST won it. Jeez!
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i agree that people need to quit complaining about this being a bad game, but this game was bad in the sense that it was not easy to watch. it was bad from an entertainment perspective, not a football perspective.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And one more thing, the running game was great too, I couldn’t care any less if Anderson went 0-50 with 10 picks so long as we won, when Costanzo got that fumble I was jumping up and down and screaming at the top of my lungs so all the Steelers fans around me could hear it down the block.(I live 15 minutes from downtown Shittsbugh, ugh) A lot of people here are starting to sound like those two guys in Major league that Booed the Indians all season until they made the playoffs.
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 6:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
At one point DA was 2 for 13 and the announcer said his passer rating was 4.9….so he throws 4 more incomplete passes and his rating ends up at 15.1???? I guess there must be a point where if you at least don’t throw another pic the rating has to get better….The halftime analysts were laughing at how bad this game was being played…and it only got worse….and where does the ball boy get off being happy about this….This week we can trade BQ to the Raiders for there 4 5 6 and 7th round choices…then we will be up to 15 picks for next year…woohoo….
by keiker on Oct 11, 2009 6:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And we can use those picks on more special teams aces!!
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean the special teams aces that gave us a victory today?
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive aces would have won the game too.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, if there was only a top-tier WR in this game, like a big, fast, loud WR that was really good. That would have put one of the teams over the top. Just not enough playmakers on offense for these teams… I’m tellin you…
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, you got owned. Sack up and admit it.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha, I wanted to so that so much but figured it might be too cheesy and perhaps outplayed. I was wrong.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A win against a team that has lost what 15 of there last 17. Easy, I would make that trade and get anybody but special team players. You may win one or two games like this a year. Browns and Dabol need to get the offense out of the 1960’s
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I was literally laughing my arse off after seeing Eric Mangini, Rob Ryan, and Derek Anderson celebrate as if they’d won the Super Bowl following the game.”
well, in their defense, i’m sure that mangini and ryan were just happy to get their first win with a new team. ryan has a reason to be that happy: the defense was great.
by emily522 on Oct 11, 2009 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hell I celebrated the first win in 99 like we won the superbowl I ran out in the street yelling my fool head off to all my friends in the neighborhood, all of Henritze ave was alive with the sounds of emphatic Browns fans, and we were downright awful then, with half our team injured, so if you really think it’s that bad and have that “woe is me” attitude now, where the hell were you then?
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
woops that wasn’t supposed to be a reply
by North Coast Flea on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get that they were happy, it was still funny to see them celebrating the way that they did. It wasn’t necessarily a knock.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I celebrated very similarly to the way they did. I was very happy to see the win!
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happened to Veikune? Not a single tackle…
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 7:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
?
What do you mean what happened to him. He is a special teams player and there wasn’t a ton of chances for ST tackles- we downed a lot of our punts and we only kicked off 3 times. I did see him on coverage- I think he might of been part of downing one of the punts inside the 5.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m guessing he was referring to the original projection that DQ Jackson would not play and that Veikune might start in his place.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah, I missed that projection, so I wasn’t thinking I would see much of Veikune.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish that we would focus on training Veikune and Francies to be good on D, instead of on ST.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 11, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to the National Football League. Play your 2 years on special teams and then you’ll get your chance on defense. That is how it works.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For 6th round picks, probably. Not for 2nd rounders. I am discouraged by the fact that Veikune hasn’t played more to this point. He probably wasn’t as good as I thought he was, or he’s facing a much tougher transition than I thought.
I hope we start seeing him soon in sub packages at least.
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will say, I was surprised to see Costansa and the new guy from the Jets in at LB before him.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still don’t fully understand why Veikune is transitioning from college DE to NFL MLB. Seems like a puzzling draft choice for a 2nd rounder to make that kind of transition. Hopefully they know something we don’t.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
people use high picks on players making that transition all the time, this is just notable because veikune wasn’t necessarily someone a lot of people had projected to do it.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DE to OLB yes- but to ILB? I don’t think that is very common.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was my point. DE to MLB is strange.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they just saw him as a smart, agile guy who has great upper body strength, shows a couple of pass-rush moves, and can read an offense. I think they figured the position he would play could sort itself out.
DE→MLB is strange, no doubt. Still, he has to be able to do something at an NFL level as a linebacker by now.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he would at least be in on some pass rushing downs by now. Did anyone see Robo, I wasn’t keeping an eye out for him.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was in there and had a pseudo-drop that was really just a really bad pass.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a little side note, I played high school football with Robiskie and its been really weird to here everyone call him robo, we always called him robi.
I’m not trying to get a nickname change, but if i ever say robi, thats why.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was in for a couple of plays. He made the tackle on the DA interception, I believe, and he was in as a WR later in the game for sure.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dave Zastudil should get 5 game balls for his effort today.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 7:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Give him two, and split the other three among the coverage team.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve been clamoring for this kind of team; defense, ST, and running game. How do you feel about the game?
by rufio on Oct 11, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would feel a lot better about it if we could put that kind of performance on over a stretch of a few games. As of now, I tend to think it is an aberration, but I love the mistake-free play along with amazing special teams and really solid D. I still would like to be more attacking on defense though, get a few more turnovers before I say that we are winning with defense.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does kind of support my belief that you can win without any passing attack which is what we will have to do when the weather gets bad. Running game was pretty impressive, and I didn’t even think Jamal looked particularly great, a top notch back would have hit the holes a lot faster and done even more with it.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with all of this. we don’t need a great or even good or even average passing attack if the D and running game and special teams are this good. But today was horrible-terrible-awful-disgusting through the air. And that is tough to overcome.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I have made the point before, but I will repeat. Anderson is completely useless when the wind is >10mph. When I heard the wind readings, I knew we would struggle big time in the passing game.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember that being an issue before, but wow, it is still hard to believe every time you see it.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true. I was at the infamous game in Cincinnati two years ago when DA threw three interceptions and ended our hopes for the playoffs. The wind was very heavy that whole game. I’m not trying to make excuses for him – there is no excuse for throwing three interceptions. For some reason, he just can’t handle windy conditions.
by bbstirrd on Oct 11, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anderson is completely useless when the wind is >10mph.
Well then Cleveland is the place for him!
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if he is going to be in Cleveland, make sure he stays real close to the lake in an open stadium.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in fairness, the air-attack ineptitude today had MUCH more to do with the receivers catching a vicious case of suck ass, and less to do with anderson.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said above, there is plenty of blame to go around. 4 or 5 drops that hit receivers right in the hands, in stride. 3 or 4 more that should have been caught, despite not being right on target. Also, the playcalling/scheme was very conservative and, well, bad. And the roster just doesn’t have a WR corps that is going to scare people or be good at getting open.
But that INT was terrible, Anderson held the ball too long on several occasions leading to a few incompletions and a sack. And still showed no touch on a couple checkdown/short routes.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think we’re disagreeing here. your first paragraph seems to support my contention that it was more not-anderson than it was anderson that lead to a crappy passing game yesterday (you point out the playcalling, too, which is a great read, b/c it was horrible, yet again). i’m not trying to absolve anderson of any blame, just saying that he was the least bad of several bad actors.
you know, on the INT i found myself saying, “well, momass learned at least 2 things from edwards…” i didn’t think he put out at all after the ball (maybe he didn’t see it?), which was a braylon hallmark, and then instead of falling on the defender who was already on the ground, he whined at the ref, or something. very 17 of you, mo mass…
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he looked like he was complaining about something- did he think he got held or did he think DA made a bad read?
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was wondering the same. the replay didn’t seem to show anything that looked like a penalty, but momass did turn in the direction of the ref… in any case, a sub-good reaction.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say it was about 8 incompletions as the WRs’ faults, and 7 that we can pin on DA. I wouldn’t call that “MUCH more” the WR’s faults than DA’s
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every QB has SOME balls that the WR could have caught though. Jus’ Sayin
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was pleasantly surprised at the 1-2 tandem of Harrison/Lewis, however I’d like to see them mix it up a bit more on first down…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 8:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. The Lewis-as-fullback package was interesting to me. I think they could build off that.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The package could work, but the problem is, with the lack of a passing game, we are going to struggle to get the run game going.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should get some opportunities as teams are probably gonna load up in the box against us and dare us to throw…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had to put this on their blog, not to gloat at all (lord knows there’s no reason for THAT)…more as a ‘we feel your pain,’ thing…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 11, 2009 8:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pretty soon he’ll be claiming that he thought Romo was gay.
by Simmsinns on Oct 11, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mack was also terrific today. Say what you want about drafting a center early, but this guy’s improvement has been fast and we have been running up the middle effectively. Amazing!
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 8:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
THIS THIS THIS
I’ll say this about drafting a center early- it is a damn good move, especially when you can trade down a bunch and accumulate picks, especially when you are rebuilding a team from ground up.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
100%. Mack is legit. He seems to get better every week.
And if you looked at who he has faced so far, I love this pick more everyday.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 11, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but…but…he’s not as handsome as mark sanchez…
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alex Mack is a guard. Any good guard can also play a decent center.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about an awesome center? Because that is what he did yesterday.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh right, something about a long torso and large ass?
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then somebody had better tell him he’s playing the wrong position!
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either DA throws too hard on the short and medium passes or are receiving corp can’t catch.
My money is on the former.
by tribe71 on Oct 11, 2009 8:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If you saw the game today, it was both. There is no excuse for Royal’s drop deep or Cribbs’ drop on the screen. Harrison had a tough one, but wasn’t exactly on target. MoMass and Stuckey had 3 combined drops that should be caught, but weren’t really on target.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 11, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A win is a win, and I’m glad that the Browns took a step away from having the #1 draft pick, but somehow I felt better about the loss to Cincy last week than I do about the win this week.
Hold your fire! There’s a reason for this.
Last week we saw the emergence of the offense and thought that there would be something to build on. But there was no building. I loved the D and ST – they kept us in the game. But the Browns didn’t so much win this one as the Bills lost it. The Browns needed every mistake the Bills made in order to get that win.
I know that there were some dropped passes, but I wouldn’t blame the receivers or the tips at the line for all of them. Anderson was throwing some serious fast balls the whole time and that just isn’t the best thing on short passes. He seemed determined to prove that he had no intention of ever learning to put any touch on his passes. “There was wind,” you say. Well, there wasn’t too much wind for Trent Freakin’ Edwards.
Ultimately, I’m bothered because what we saw today doesn’t bode well for the next (4) game(s). It’s a win, but it doesn’t look like forward progress. I can only hope that with another week of practice together under their belts the passing game will show up on Sunday in Pittsburgh.
by JustBob on Oct 11, 2009 8:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
As much as I’m thrilled we have that first W now, I agree with this a bit. Nice running and good D, but…. Well, let’s hope we’re still putting all the pieces together, just in fits and starts.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was major forward progress for the defense, the special teams, and the “mistake free” culture bing sewn in berea. major progress. the offense sputtered…well, we have exactly zero playmakers on offense, so you might expect some sputteration.
bill parcells used to say to phil simms that simms should throw the ball as hard as he wanted to on every play, and if the receivers couldn’t catch him, then they’d get new receivers. the fastballs should be caught if they hit the hands. period.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, hopefully we’ll see them get more in sync over time. And I have to say that looking back, there were some shorter passes that DA put some touch on. But I think it might work out a bit better if the receivers could expect him to (most of the time) throw the necessary ball – touch when preferred, rocket when necessary – rather than having to figure it out on the run every time they turn their heads back to the QB?
Sure there will be times when the unexpected forces a harder throw than they planned on, but I still think that things would click better if DA could learn to throttle back when the situation allows for it. Yes, the bear can rip of the head. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
He needs to be able to trust the receivers, but they also need to be able to trust him.
by JustBob on Oct 12, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the ball hits you in the hands, you catch it. This is the NFL.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am just wondering if Quinn goes 2 for 17 for 23 yards if the board would want him still out there even though they won. I doubt it.
by Grockcubs on Oct 11, 2009 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we can have this discussion all we want but the fact remains that with quinn this hardly resembled a football team, and with da they have a chance to win. i wouldn’t have cared if quinn went 2-17 every week and i won’t care if DA does it, as long as the team wins.
by notthatnoise on Oct 11, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you’re saying you would switch out a winning qb for one with better stats? let me ask you this: you have to drive down the field and score in under two minutes to win the super bowl, who’s your qb, joe montana or dan marino?
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I’d take the guy with better stats, who happens to be Joe Montana in your example.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell is a “winning QB” — a quarterback with great teammates?
We’ve had this discussion ad nausium on here with Steelers fans and others. Analyzing a quarterback’s play by wins and losses is the ultimate in stupidity and we don’t do that here. If you want to continue that kind of talk then head to cleveland.com and join the crowd there.
Take any “winning QB” and put him on a bad team and he wouldn’t be winning so much any more. There are 22 starters on a football team — not to mention backups and special teamers — so attributing a win to one player is just dumb.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually Montana and Marino are both retired. I checked. Our only choices at the moment are Quinn and Anderson. Right now I’m not feeling that is much of a choice since neither showed any signs of improvement when they were on the field.
by JustBob on Oct 12, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and it’s possible that the reason for this is that the defense has to at least respect the passing game with DA behind center. Not saying that is the reason for certain, but we have been competitive both games with DA.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still put a lot of weight into the demeanor of the quarterback and looking like they know what they are doing. Anderson’s stat line was awful, but it wasn’t like he danced around from the pressure at the snap and threw it to no man’s land. He usually knew where he was going with the football and tried to fire it in there. It must sound like a joke for me to label that as a positive for a starting QB, but compared to Quinn, it is.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Oct 11, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
DA looks comfortable after the snap, Quinn looks more comfortable before it.
If we have to pick one, I’d probably go with the “after the snap” guy. I still don’t think we have sorted out our long-term QB situation.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s like groundhog day.
The best part about last season ending was my belief that the Browns would finally be able to settle on a QB once and for all.
Stupid hope.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh. Minor variations of all the same QB arguments for another year plus, hurray!
I’m nauseated to think about how far we’ve come only to be back where we started with the uncertainty at quarterback.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I think it is pretty certain right now. We have two bad QBs.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like…above average bad. world-class bad.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 13, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, you’re not wrong. Perhaps I’m only being pessimistic in imagining that both will somehow show enough on the field this year to keep this debate going….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 14, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the debate will rage, to be sure…but it’s a debate b/w two shit tacos.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 14, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was a between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.
by Simmsinns on Oct 14, 2009 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know this probably sounds like wishful thinking, but i truly believe at least one of these guys won’t be back next year, and that would definitely settle things down.
by notthatnoise on Oct 12, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have much to say after reading the posts here. Lots of people wanting to return to Quinn based on DAs stats—I’m definitely against that. I can’t get excited about the offense but it has been consistently bad for a long time and it will have to get better step-by-step, game-after-game to even be considered decent… especially with all the changes going on. I really thought the Browns played a way too conservative of a game but with Buffalo taking all the risks and it blowing up in their faces, I guess it turned out to be the right thing to do. In order to beat a team that is beating itself, you can’t make big mistakes and that seems to have been the game plan here.
Congrats to the Browns for a beginning! It is clear all the answers as far as personnel are not in place. The Browns are in a position to build depth and build for the future but this year is going to be rough. I doubt we’ll beat any really good teams but I think we’ll beat most of the bad ones we play. I’m still sticking to my 7 game prediction.
Game balls to special teams, the O-line, the D-line, Zastidil and dare I say Mangini for not getting too impatient? Maybe that’s pushing it…
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 11, 2009 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I am pretty confident that DA will be the QB the rest of the way barring injury.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 11, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
/agree… but looks like it won’t be pretty. The receivers may develop but it is supposed to be one of the slowest developing positions in the game (transition from college). I’m hoping Stuckey will bring some maturity and help the rookies along once he gets settled in. Hey, maybe we could pick up Harrison! …if not as a player maybe a receivers coach? ;-)
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither offense had anything to be proud of today. The Bills sabotaged themselves with penalties. DA fired fastballs where receivers couldnt haul them in. You notice when Peyton fires his fastballs, they come into where they can be handled. You can’t expect a receiver to haul in a fastball fired at his shoulder pad or at his shin.
We believed there would be some teams we could beat this year. We got lucky and met a team that is beat up and without spirit. But, it’s all fair play because sometimes we are the time that is beat up and without spirit.
Zastudil is getting a lot credit, but it’s the coverage team that gets down there and downs the ball before it advances to the endzone. I have never seen a Browns coverage team with this much talent. This game was a loss without them and the Cincy game wouldn’t have been close without the special teamers. It serves to remind me how bad the other units play when it takes this kind of effort on special teams to accomplish this little.
by elsandito on Oct 11, 2009 11:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your comments about the coverage plays. Some of the best play I’ve ever seen. It takes two to tango though and “Z” has to hang it just right… and in the wind that was there, that was some pretty good kickin’.
The thing that makes this win a little more credible to me is that it was an away game. True, they handed to us in a big way but it is still possible to lose to a team that is beating itself if you don’t play nearly mistake-free.
I’d say the defense had a good game though.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“You can’t expect a receiver to haul in a fastball fired at his shoulder pad…”
What? I definitely expect an NFL WR to be able to catch anything that hits him in the torso. What part of the shoulder pad are you talking about?
“…or at his shin. "
Yeah, true. There were several really poor throws.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, i’m reading 9 drops…and we all know how drops are measured by nfl statisticians. there were a couple of others off hands, but in tougher spots. so “several” really poor throws, to me, is unfair. there were 6, at most, (2 of 17, w/ 9 “drops”) and i think it’s clear there weren’t even that many.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Royal should be benched for that drop. Is Heiden that much worse?
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I always thought Heiden had decent hands. I dunno where this love affair with Royal came from. I guess because Heiden was banged up earlier.
by JustBob on Oct 12, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing. It seems like Royal drops more passes than he catches. And Heiden has always been dependable in the passing game. Has anyone noticed any difference in their blocking abilities?
by bbstirrd on Oct 12, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Royal is much more athletic than Heiden at this point.
That’s about the only thing I can say in favor of Royal.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only guess is that Daboll thinks Royal is a better blocker. I’m not sure about that.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think (hope?) they’re easing heiden back from a pretty major injury, too.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope so too. It seems to me that Royal is open because the DEF doesn’t respect his receiving ability. The QB sees a wide open receiver and proceeds to hit him in the numbers/hands. We all know what happens next…
by tribe71 on Oct 12, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m hoping they can work in Estandia more. He may not be great, but he’s big (6’8"), and apparently can catch the ball.
by NM Dawg on Oct 12, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the fact that he wasn’t immediately yanked off the field after that drop was disappointing to me.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I was disappointed in seeing Rucker go as well. I thought he might have been a solid contributer at some point.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based on what? We never saw him play.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had very good hands, was athletic, and produced a ton in college. I doubt he forgot how to catch in 2 years, but anything’s possible.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hell yeah!
Good win. If we’re going to do this QB thing week after week, it’s going to be a long season. This was a game for the run offense to get it done. DA is not accurate on short throws and makes bad decisions. But I like him on medium and long throws. Expect greatness and mediocrity in equal measure from him the rest of the season. Some games he’ll turn up to play and some games he won’t.
I’m really looking forward to the Steelers game though, just in case he turns it on then.
by Terrible Terry Tate on Oct 12, 2009 7:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Browns forfeit this game in retrospect as far as I´m concerned. 2 of 17? And you even accept this win? Where is your football honor?
Quinn failed and Anderson failed, while receiving top dollars. Bench those contracts, they won´t disappoint us much longer. Brett Ratliff can run a balanced offense.
by mooncamping on Oct 12, 2009 8:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Quinn’s contract is quite small if he doesn’t play something like 75% of the snaps.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gimme a Break!!!!!
Heres a novel approach to quarterback developement. get a quarterbacks coach!!!! BQ and DA have had to do their own developement they have no mentor to pick the brain of. Except Ken Dorsey….Gimme a Break!!! They throw millions of dollars at these players and then expect them to do on the job training with no talent around them. Mr. Lerner even Bernie Kosar had Gary Danielson to help him grow and develope. Reach in those deep pockets of yours and scrounge around for a couple hundred grand and get yourself a quarterbacks coach. Gimme a Break!!!!
by RiverDoc56 on Oct 12, 2009 8:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure the Browns have a quarterbacks coach. And an offensive coordinator. And other coaches to help the QB’s develop. I’m not sure what else you want.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
gary danielson wasn’t our qb coach.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thoughts on the game.
What most of you people fail to understand is that Derek Anderson is not at fault for NINE DROPPED PASSES. Count the 2-3 passes that bounced off receivers hands and thats a good 12 passes that were not caught because of the receivers. Derek Anderson could have been 14/17 had the receivers caught the ball.
I think people need to take a step back from their little dream worlds and rather than think with no common sense, try to see things from a sane perspective.
It’s easy to blame the QB because you lack the insight to actually analyze the game. When you work with computers, you have one network line going from point A to point B, case in point, it takes a QB to throw and receiver to catch. Receivers should be smart enough to adapt to a QB’s throw, if said throw is on the mark. Given that there were 40mph winds in yesterdays game and it didn’t appear that Derek Anderson was innaccurate aside from windy conditions, the conclusion to me is that the receivers are at fault.
People need to put a little effort into things instead of pushing the blame on the
quarterback because they have a personal vendetta or have a stiffy for the other QB.
Special Teams played very well, Defense played well. Jamal Lewis was a surprise. Not the way you want to see a win, you’d rather see more offense and high scoring shootouts but it got the job done. On to a real challenge next week against the Steelers.
by Denarchy on Oct 12, 2009 9:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. I unfortunately saw little of the game, but the consensus around here seems to be that the blame can be split by all involved parties. (Also, the wind numbers seem to be gusts of 20 and lower and not 40, not to nitpick too much.)
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Oct 12, 2009 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understood, and I know that as QB, they take a lot of flack. I guess I am just frustrated that people jump on the QB. Quinn wasn’t too bad when he played, but they were afraid of him airing it out. Anderson can air it out but regardless, if you have receivers that cannot catch, it is irrelevant who is starting QB.
by Denarchy on Oct 12, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The QB always gets more praise than he should, and always more blame.
Nothing new.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Points...
The defense played well and the punt team won the game.
But I don’t care how many passes were dropped – Anderson was terrible.
And this is from a fan who thinks Quinn is worse, but I think this team’s #1 need is apparent.
by Pruitt on Oct 12, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just dont see it… DA was not that bad… he cant throw the passes and catch them… the receivers have to make plays… and they just failed… when DA sucks… I wont stick up for him… but mangini will give him a mulligan for that performance…
by thelonius7 on Oct 12, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s easy to blame the QB because you lack the insight to actually analyze the game.
Wow — thanks for coming here to call all of us idiots. I’m glad that you’re here to give us your “insight”.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t believe I used the term “idiots,” it’s simply a statement about persons that cannot differentiate between 9 dropped passes and an actual poor performance by a quarterback. Of course, the quarterback will catch hell for a poor performance by the offense, but the great thing is that football is a team game. The quarterback cant catch the balls either. Had they not dropped the passes, Anderson could have gone 11/17 and maybe 150yds and a TD, had Royal Robert caught at least one ball.
by Denarchy on Oct 13, 2009 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you need to do is watch other teams play – teams that have good or at least average QBs. Not talking about Manning or Brady, try watching Rodgers or Hasselbeck.
Or even Henne in Miami.
Then, the next time you watch the Browns, you’ll have an educated base line from which to judge.
by Pruitt on Oct 13, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he still made some throws that were downright awful. I can absolutely differentiate between horrible WR play, a bad offense, and a poor QB performance.
We had all three on Sunday.
by rufio on Oct 13, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have said this over and over and over. DA still made some terrible throws, and I didn’t like him at the LoS before the snap. Buffalo was able to jump the snap count far too often.
He didn’t have a whole lot of help, but don’t act like he deserved to be 14/17. Please.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fun Fact Of The Day
The Bills phone in guys mentioned this one after the game – from the point when Anderson’s rating for the game was 4.9, it wen up despite the fact that HE DIDN’T COMPLETE ANOTHER PASS!
With each incompletion, it went up 2.4 or something.
By the way, I have been to many games at Ralph Wilson and have seen many, many, many average QBs complete more than two passes.
A win’s a win, and to be honest, that game was so bad that it was kind of entertaining.
by Pruitt on Oct 12, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I laughed a lot during that game. I couldn’t believe all the obvious penalties. I don’t think I’ve ever seen guys jump offsides so obviously and look so sheepish time after time. As tough as it is to be a Browns fan this year, it has to be worse to root for Buffalo right now.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A little statistical wake-up call…
The combined record this year of the 4 teams we played before Buffalo is 17-3 (that includes two sets of teams that played each other so there had to be a loss).
The combined record for the next 4 teams we play is 12-7
That first set of four is actually pretty inhuman from a statistical standpoint—they track as elite teams right now. The wins of the next 4 are more down-to-earth but still quite a bit better than we can hope to conquer in this stage of the Browns development. All the teams have winning records except one that is 2-2. If I had to pick a win of the next 4 I guess I’d say Green Bay at home. But I don’t think it is out of the question that the Browns lose all 4 of the next games giving a 1-8 record.
The near future is another gut-check for this team. Let’s see what adversity does. Do you think they will collapse or come out stronger? Something you might have missed yesterday is that the team gave coach Mangini the game ball. I like that.
In a strategic sense, I like that the team is being built on a strong foundation. Right now there is no doubt that the best, most reliable players on the team are on the O and D lines. That is a good way to build a team for the future. As fans, do we have the patience?
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Good post.
Patience is definitely called for with Mangini.
And 17-3 is ridiculous.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As fans… we don’t have much choice but to be patient.
It also pays to remember that the team was floundering last season, so let’s look for the positives where we can find them.
by Pruitt on Oct 12, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good post. I was relooking over the schedule and trying to figure out what the “best case” scenario…and our once seemingly innoculous schedule has turned pretty brutal. 17-3 the first four weeks is absurd. I would not have guessed that Denver and Cincy would turn into the monsters they seemingly are.
The next stretch is not much easier. Our next four includes @Pit, @Chicago and Baltimore. I guess if there is any consolation, we do play Detroit and then the last three against the equally as miserable KC, Oakland, and Jacksonville.
If we get out of this 6-10, we’re not doing too badly. I figure anymore than that is a bonus.
by DisplacedBuckeye on Oct 12, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point about the SoS. We can make those next four teams’ W-L records look a lot worse if we win those games. Not saying we go 4-0, just that we do have some influence over their W-L records, and that we should look to tip them toward “L”.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it all started last tuesday when the whole coaching staff slept in… You have to coach against any opponent if you want to be in the win colum on Sunday. You have to adjust during the game if you see something is not working too. Oh yeah, I forgot as coach you can not sleep while your watching opponents films..
wbaron
by wbaron on Oct 12, 2009 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
well, i laughed at this post, so there is that.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 12, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not sure there’s any other option…
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am guessing a sleep-deprived coach doesn’t coach as well as one that has gotten at least some sleep.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im not sure why people are so down on DA because of the 2 of 16 stat line… there were at least 8 drops in that game… it looked like MOMASS gave up on the pick… There is no way that the Browns should go back to Quinn… simply because the are a much better team running the football when teams have to respect DA’s ability to accurately throw the ball down field…
Chris mentioned that this win had nothing to do with the fact that braylon was not here… I see his point… but I kinda disagree… this may be the first time that I noticed the browns trying to establish an identity… they ran the ball hard… they ran often… they used motion and misdirection… they committed to the run first… Occasionally they took unsuccessful shots downfield… but they did not lose focus on what they were trying to do offensively… the ate up clock… played field position… and let the special teams win the game for them… that may have been a taste of what is to come in the braylon free future… a new identity… for a new Browns era…
by thelonius7 on Oct 12, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There is no way that the Browns should go back to Quinn… simply because the are a much better team running the football when teams have to respect DA’s ability to accurately throw the ball down field…
2 for 17 isn’t throwing the ball downfield accurately.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about that pass to royal?? Im sorry… that stat line only tells a partial story… One problem is that those drops really hurt DA’s rythmn… its hard to get anything going when third down passes are unceremoniously dropped…
by thelonius7 on Oct 12, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to agree here. The box score does not accurately reflect a QB’s performance. When you see a 2-17 comp/att ratio you instinctively blame the QB. But imagine if the box score showed drops for a receiver. Or, what if the box score just showed completions and not attempts? It would change your perception. Sure, if you saw 2 completions you would still think it was terrible but what if it was 15 completions? Initially that looks respectable before seeing the number of attempts which might be 38 (Shaun Hill was 15-38). You need to analyze the entire situation before you rate any player’s performance. I remember at least 3 passes that should have, without a doubt, been caught.
I’m not huge on BQ or DA but I feel that DA’s upside is putting players in position to make plays. That pass to Royal was on the money. MoMass and Stuckey both had a drop each on passes that were catchable. Quinn is not ready to start at the NFL level. He’s either not reading the defense and/or is hesitant to throw downfield. Either way, it’s just not going to suffice. The amount of 2 yard receptions this season is embarrassing.
by JasonA on Oct 12, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But imagine if the box score showed drops for a receiver. Or, what if the box score just showed completions and not attempts? It would change your perception
If my QB only showed 2 completions, I would think he was hurt. Or he sucked.
I remember at least 3 passes that should have, without a doubt, been caught.
Fine. 5 for 17 still sucks. I’m not saying that other players have a hand in that crapola performance, but it should start with DA. This isn’t the first rodeo with him. Do you forget the Redskins last year were he was 5-22 in the first three quarters. going back to last year he has had 4 games where he has completed less than 38% of his passes. In 13 games! That isn’t all dropped passes.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our WR’s dropping passes has been a season long problem, not just a DA problem. Yes the Royal drop was bad, but let’s be real, its not like DA is an accurate passer. His big advantage is the fact that he has a monster arm, but his accuracy is nothing to call home about. Only QB in theNFL with a lower conmpletion percentage is JaMarcus Russell. Blame drops all you want, but this is nothing new.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many times did you see a ball bounce right off a receiver’s hands? I think I counted at least 5 out of the 9 dropped passes. That’s pretty accurate to hit a receiver right on the hands.
by Denarchy on Oct 13, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I think we do need another look at Quinn, at this point in this season we need solid evaluations of personnel. I feel this is the primary necessity for this particular season, especially going into next years draft. That doesn’t mean we’re drafting a QB high again next year, even if both QBs fail (which seems most likely the case)…I wouldn’t put it past Mangini to go after a seasoned free agent QB and who knows? That might not necessarily be a bad idea.
I would really like some draft help on the right side of the O line. We really have an opportunity right now to build a terrific O line for years to come through the draft…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also are going to have to address our running back situation at some point.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are several teams out there stacked at RB: Dallas (M. Barber, F. Jones, T. Choice), Tampa (C. Williams, D. Ward, E. Graham), even Oakland (D. McFadden, M. Bush, J. Fargas). I’m thinking just about any of them would be an upgrade over what we currently have. What are the chances we could trade a mid-round pick for one of them (especially M. Bush – that guy is a beast) in the offseason?
by bbstirrd on Oct 12, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of those guys really do all that much for me.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Dallas backs are talented, the rest I could live without.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barber is a career-ending injury waiting to happen. Jones, though talented, isn’t worth his contract. Choice, I haven’t seen play.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jones looks great when he is on the field. Unfortunately, he has missed way more games than he has played in.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see Choice as a Leon Washington or Jerome Harrison type back. Not a full-time back.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Choice is a different kind of back vs. those two, IMO. Probably not a load-carrier, though.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just heard on the radio that the raiders (players) are essentially for sale. might be interesting to try to procure on of those RBs at a fire-sale price.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 12, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the thought of a Michael Bush / Jerome Harrison 1-2 punch running game.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think buying low on McFadden is a great idea. Yes he is expensive, but he has a boatload of talent.
I am usually against expensive RB’s but Run DMC is a talent.
by Bernie19Kosar on Oct 12, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Screw McFadden. If the Raiders are having a fire sale, Nmadi Asomugha is the guy we want.
by golanbatrac on Oct 12, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 12, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to keep Davis and Harrison in the lineup…at the right price Mcfadden could add a good deal of power to that lineup and not have to be an every down back, which at this point we aren’t sure he can be anyways… I definitely like the idea of RB by committee…
…fresh legs and RB’s who have different strengths to complement each other.
Michael Bush, Cadillac williams all would be an upgrade…keep in mind beggars can’t be choosers and if we can get one of them on the cheap I’m all for it. Coupled with an Oline strengthened by the draft and we have a nice foundation there to build on…I can see this team drastically different next year…and for the better, one groomed for the NFC North, physical, power running attack anchored by a quality O line…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
free agency coupled with a significant number of draft pics will definitely help us along…Of course we have extensive needs defensively but really our defense seems to be significantly better than our offense, and if we can make some major upgrades offensively we are going to be a tough ‘out’ next year…I’m willing to wait a bit on the defense to get our offense back to a competitive level…I say all out for the O right now…
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Browns ran the ball often during their first four games, too. I don’t think that changed very much. We were more successful against the Bills because their defense isn’t as good as most of the defenses we’ve faced up to that point.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 12, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The stat line didn’t reflect DA’s play, but DA’s play still wasn’t very good.
MoMass gave up on the INT after it was already in the other guys’ hand. He should have been fighting to make the tackle, but he had no shot at the actual ball.
Still, 1 INT doesn’t kill a performance.
Some of DA’s other throws and reads were pretty bad, too.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they had 100 yard rushers the last two weeks… its an interesting point… because the bills were not as stout as the vikes… but the bengals arent bad… what about the broncos where Ja Lew was 14 and 38…
by thelonius7 on Oct 12, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In general, I favor Quinn. However, going into this Pittsburgh game I can’t help but think that Anderson is the better fit due to the stretching of the field he creates and his quicker release. If Quinn is in, and the pace of the game similar to his earlier games, I think Pittsburgh will eat him up.
by NM Dawg on Oct 12, 2009 3:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, if Mangini was even entertaining the idea of giving Quinn another start sometime soon, this coming week would be a baaad time. We might very well see him come in if it starts to get ugly (and it probably will, unfortunately), which is fine, but next week against Green Bay would most likely be a better idea. I think he needs to be looked at some more sometime down the line here this season.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why? Why does Quinn need another chance? To be fair I’m not sure on your stance on Quinn but it feels like the general consensus is that neither Quinn nor DA is the future franchise qb.
by JasonA on Oct 12, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All kidding and jokes aside on that photo – Mangini and Ryan are celebrating together. It’s a nice image and shows the coaches have some type of mutual appreciation.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Oct 12, 2009 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it shows two guys feeling like they have a short reprieve on their jobs.
It’s hard to get a good gig in the NFL. These guys are still waiting for their, but in the meantime they have the Browns. And they need this gig to work out for them to take a step up.
And nice to see you guys finally get a win. It’s about time. Keep ’em coming. Ugly as sin, but a “W” is a “W”.
"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler." -- #58
by __.58.__ on Oct 12, 2009 8:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah…I forgot it was Pittsburgh week. Thanks for sharing.
Hopefully we can oblige you and keep those wins coming this week.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great, Steelers trolls all week. Shoot me now.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Oct 12, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trolling Browns fans this year is like beating up the Downs Syndrome kid. Go bother the Ravens or Bengals.
by johnnyphoenix on Oct 12, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
braylon just caught a TD pass.
another 2nd round pick, anyone?
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 9:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That 2nd foot didn’t look like it touched to me!
by tribe71 on Oct 12, 2009 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the actual stat that he needs to reach? Because if it’s virtually unreachable, I really really don’t want to root for this guy.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rumor was I think 65 catches the rest of the way. No official word.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm, sigh. I’d love the second round pick upgrade, but the idea of rooting for a guy that can’t score for 12 strait games with us than does it in his 1st game with the new team… I don’t like at all.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry the writing’s a little small haha.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The football gods poop on Cleveland again. I’m sure Braylon has two TDs in the very next game after he demoed his wooden hands in the Bengals game…
Wait… oops! The 2nd TD was not a TD… but a heck of a catch none the less.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, that’ll mean a 2nd rounder for us.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah… I have faith in Braylon’s ability and the football gods. He’ll drop 65 passes before the season is out…lol.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
the football gods have proven themselves to not be fans of the Browns.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 12, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the football gods also pooped on my fantasy team. all the experts said start DA in a bye week against a crappy bills defense, and start harrison.
so, i do not start ronnie brown or sanchez. would’ve won if i had. rookie mistake for me lol.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 TDs for braylon?
geez, maybe they should’ve drafted sanchez (that is a joke.)
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This has to be some kind of practical joke, right? RIGHT?!?!
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the fact that braylon caught two touchdowns, or the fact i said they should’ve drafted sanchez?
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops, posted it before the challenge.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still an amazing catch, and not his only one this far. I don’t know what to think. I’m at a loss of words.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really the more surprising thing is the lack of drops.
He’s always made spectacular catches.
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
/agree rufio… he makes spectacular catches and just as spectacular drops. That is his mode of operation.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
go figure sanchez/braylon have chemistry.
anyone want to guess what mangini is thinking?
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!
What a catch. He is a talent.
"Do you want a bunch of duds walking around with their shoulders slumped and having no emotions, no feelings?" Bradley said. "I don’t think the fans want that. I think they want a guy who’s going to get into the game and feel a little bit. I’ve always said, ‘I don’t really play baseball, I feel it.’ "
by Villeslgr on Oct 12, 2009 10:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Heres a stat that will make you feel good;
Braylon’s TDs this week= Our completions this week.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually, not true. And if you think he’d be doing this on the Browns, then you are missing the entire point.
Braylon Edwards is a sandbagging asshole.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 12, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I just said it will make you wanna throw up.
by TheRealSlimShady on Oct 12, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braylon Edwards is a sandbagging asshole.
I’m glad that I’m not the only one who is thinking that! I was afraid to say anything, figuring I might be chastised that he might do such a thing, but I agree completely.
by Simmsinns on Oct 12, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn’t playing hard/well when with us because he was unhappy, now that he’s got what he (temporarily) wants he’ll “step up”
by rufio on Oct 12, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh, that would not shock me at all.
by emily522 on Oct 12, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
…until he thinks he needs more money. Heck, maybe he’s reformed and will give it all to charity.
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Oct 12, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braylon Edwards was the most talented player on this team.
by fwembt on Oct 12, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs