Browns = The Next Patriots?

by shep615 on Nov 10, 2009 11:41 AM EST

I think if I'm reading this right we're supposed to be the next New England Patriots? I'm down with that. But I'm curious to see all your reactions to it. I've heard it said that if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Well, this sounds pretty darn good. However, I suppose the eternal optimist in me says that it's possible. But then again, the Browns fan (or Cleveland fan in general) in me says claiming that a Cleveland team is going to turn into the next team to be in the national championship game in any sport every other year like the Patriots is just absurd. I hope the optimist is right.

Thoughts?

This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

we could only hope…..

by North Coast Flea on Nov 10, 2009 1:29 PM EST reply actions

All he did was compare this team to the 2000 Patriots. Assuming we’ll have a similar future is taking too far. The Patriots got an extremely lucky diamond in the rough with Tom Brady, who wasn’t amazing in college. He also managed to audible into proper blitz protection as his sideline taped the defensive signals. This can probably attribute for each of their Superbowl victories. (At the very least, it gave them an outrageously unfair advantage on their opponent.)

by Simmsinns on Nov 10, 2009 2:13 PM EST reply actions

We don’t have such advantages. (Especially considering we have the coach who ratted on them for such activities in the first place.)

by Simmsinns on Nov 10, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions

They weren’t playing the Jets in the Superbowl.

by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 10, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions

you really think he only taped signals for one game one season?

by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions

i mean come on, he was doing that kind of stuff when he coached cleveland

by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

wow you’re so funny, you should tell that joke at parties.

by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

how did this get posted here? completely wrong place

by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Blame the noob :-) Where should it be posted? Forgive me, I’m still getting a feel for the site

by shep615 on Nov 11, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

I think he was asking how his comment got posted there, not your post.

But, since you asked, if you’re going to post a link to another article make it a FanShot, not a FanPost. FanPosts are used for making a post of your own thoughts, not linking to another article.

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 11, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

i was indeed referring to my own post, i personally have no problem with people posting fanposts that should probably be fanshots

by notthatnoise on Nov 11, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions

by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 11, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions

Give me a Tom Brady caliber player at the QB position, and I will have no problem comparing us. Until that happens, sorry.

by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2009 2:51 PM EST reply actions

rather have a peyton manning or drew brees … brady is a product of his environment … place him on any other team after a year or two with the pats and he would have failed … just like cassel is doing now.

by jsneides on Nov 10, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

Don’t agree, but I probably would rather have Manning and maybe Brees

by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions

now im pretty young so i dont remember much of the big ten days with brady at the helm of the retards up north … but from what i do remember he was pretty bad … i just think a team that can take a guy who last started QB in high school and continue to have a winning season after losing their franchise QB has be making a pretty good situation around their QB. On the other hand you have Peyton and Brees who may have the same situation but were definitely better in college therefore im assuming that is what translated into their success in the NFL. However im not an NFL scout so I could be totally off.

by jsneides on Nov 10, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

Mostly agree.

by Simmsinns on Nov 10, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

You really think Tom Brady is a product of the system?

by Roger Dorn on Nov 10, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

System or Environment?

by golanbatrac on Nov 10, 2009 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

Not the offensive X’s and O’s system, but I think being in New England didn’t hurt him.

Brady’s drive and competitiveness (and willingness to be competitive in the film room, in the offseason, etc.) are what set him apart in my mind. Was he as accurate in college? I don’t think so, but I don’t think I saw him play a whole lot. Was he as good at reading defenses? At predicting what the opposing team will do? I doubt it, because any QB who displayed those types of charictaristics with any sort of consistency at michigan wouldn’t have lasted until the sixth. He’s outworked people to get to where he is today.

There are times where we have talked about the “what if Ngata went to us instead of Wimbley” debate and wondered if Wimbley would be Demarcus Ware II and Ngata would be Gerrard Warren II. I don’t think Ngata would be as good if we drafted him, I don’t think Brady would be as good if NE didn’t draft him.

by rufio on Nov 11, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions

Mostly, I’d just rather have Manning or Brees. Manning can read defense without the defensive play call read into his ear. Brees has shown that he can play and carry his team to victory under nearly any conditions, a lot of QBs crack under pressure.

Now with Brady, I do think that the system helped create/develop the product. But the product is still damn good. But, I do think he’s probably in the nicest situation a QB could ever hope for. And a lot of mediocre QBs would look great in his situation: Cassel; Now if you put a great QB in there, you get: Holy shit 50 touchdowns.

Lastly, I do think early on he was a product of the cheating system, absolutely. It’s like being Peyton Manning without having to watch any real game tape.

by Simmsinns on Nov 11, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions

Cassel is a good QB. Not great, but good.

by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 11, 2009 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

There is no way that anyone can call Tom Brady a product of the system or his environment. He won three Super Bowls without a dominating running back or wide receiver. Of course they had a great defense, but he made plays with the offense. And he had a record-setting year in ‘07 when he finally had a great receiver (Moss). I think it’s clear that Brady would have been great anywhere.

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 10, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions

I can’t disagree with the statement that Brady would have been great anywhere. But I can see where another team might not have been great with Brady at the helm. I think Donovan McNabb is a pretty great QB but I think to a large extent his team and organization does not demonstrate the same excellence. Hence they are almost there most of the time. Meanwhile, without Brady, the Pats won 11 games last year. Again, not a reflection particularly on Brady; no doubt he is a Hall of Fame QB. But he is surrounded by a great team and organization that fosters overall consistency and a winning tradition.
Can a team excel without QB excellence? Some would say that it has happened. Look at the Trent Dilfer Ravens or the Brad Johnson Bucs. Without a doubt the QB is a key part of any team but I’m not of the opinion that you need one of the top 5 QBs in the league to be successful as a team.

Brownsyup

by Brownsyup on Nov 11, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions