Post-Game Thread: Lions Win 38-37 Shootout
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 22, 2009 4:40 PM EST
in General News
Email
PrintIf you heard the Browns were 1-9 and watched this game, you would've thought it was our defense that was responsible for how horrible we've played this year.
With the Browns having their only good offensive game of the season behind Brady Quinn's four touchdown passes, the team had a 37-31 lead with under two minutes to go. The Lions had no timeouts left but moved the ball down the field to attempt a Hail Mary with eight seconds left. After scrambling around forever, Lions rookie quarterback Matthew Stafford launched the ball as he took a shot from C.J. Mosley. The ball was intercepted by Brodney Pool, but the officials threw the flag for pass interference in the end zone. Why was the call a poor one?
- You always see a crowd of people jump for a Hail Mary, but pass interference never gets called.
- The ball would've been uncatchable compared to where Pool picked it.
Then, the Lions were charged with an injury timeout they didn't have, although since a game can't end on a penalty, the Lions were still permitted to run their play from the one-yard line. Here's the problem -- Matthew Stafford should've been ineligible to return for one play. Stafford then came back into the game after the Browns called a timeout and threw the one-yard touchdown pass to TE Brandon Pettigrew. The CBS announcing crew originally kept proclaiming that the Lions took a timeout.
A blown call at the end that ruined our only shining moments on offense of the season. Pfft.
370 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I believe the time out called at the end of the game was by the Browns. Since a time out was called by the Browns, Stafford was then allowed to re-enter the game.
Here is the play by play. The Browns did call a TO before Stafford came back in.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, if it was the Browns, then that part would make sense. The announcers kept reporting Detroit afterwards, but then again Criqui and Cross announced everything else wrong all game.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 22, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
They were probably like all of us. Couldn’t believe what they were seeing.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
No joke. Plus he kept calling Cliff Avril "Clint Avril"
I know it’s the 2 worst teams in the league, but come on, do your homework, booth guys!
I don’t see how the NFL can’t look back at this and overturn the loss.
The TO makes sense now because of the penalty but the ineligibility doesn’t.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
They don’t overturn losses. Remember the Ed Hochuli call last year in the first Broncos-Chargers game? The league and the official himself admitted the game-deciding call was wrong but no one overturned it.
Yeah but there was still time in that wasn’t it? Which allows for destiny in a game.
The ineligibility call would allow for a runoff.
Only one possibility.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
They got the call right.
Yes PI happens on almost all hail marys, but Johnson was tackled.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
But the ball was intercepted before it got to the receiver (by someone NOT intefering), hence the PI didn’t matter. The ball wasn’t catchable so no PI.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
But it was out of reach of any eligible receiver.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
and it definitely appeared johnson tackled the db, not the other way around
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
You could make the argument that CJ was stopped because of the tackle. Not saying it was possible, but I can understand the call.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
But it was intercepted IN FRONT of him, so that didn’t matter. He didn’t have a chance to catch the ball, anyways. That’s the point.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
How can a receiver catch a ball if a Browns player intercepts it first? The interception had nothing to do with the interference.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
That’s just the not way it’s ever been called, to my memory. If the safety interferes with the receiver, but the corner was in front of them and would have made the pick anyway, it’s still interference, right?
Look, I agree that they never call it on the end of the game hail mary. But let’s place some blame were it goes: the DBs have to be more aware in that situation.
And anyway, excellent game by the offense. I’m excited.
I don’t know, I’ve never seen interference like that. Usually the interference on an interception leads directly to the pick, so it’s obvious, but on this play the interference didn’t matter at all — the ball was going to be picked anyways.
But, yeah, the defender can’t knock the receiver over like that. You’re just asking for a flag.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Even if there was no interception, the best the WR could have hoped for would have been knocking the Browns DB out of having a strangle-hold on the position he had. He would have had to interfere to catch the ball. So, whether it was intercepted or just an incomplete pass, it was game over.
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 23, 2009 4:54 AM EST up reply actions
My other question would be why does the DB have his back to the passer in a hail mary situation anyways?
I know I am in the minority here, but I thought it was an easy call. The two officals right there both called it right away.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree. The receiver had no chance of catching the ball. The refs bailed them out.
That said, the DB shouldn’t give the refs the chance to make that call. Don’t make it so obvious.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
To be honest, when I first saw the flag I thought it was offensive PI.
Then on the replay I saw the DB with his back to the ball. Not having your head turned around is just asking for a flag.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
+1, DB's back was turned.......Here's the video
http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d814654cc
Note the spot where Calvin Johnson was before he was pushed out of the back of the end zone by the first DB…..same spot where the “uncatchable” ball was caught by the other DB.
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
Weak call. There’s contact both ways as is typical on hail mary plays. Refs blew it.
by Western Reserve on Nov 22, 2009 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Dude, Johnson was not going to catch that ball. You cannot possibly argue otherwise. If you want to argue that there was interference and a flag should have been thrown then that’s legitimate, but don’t try to say that the interference kept him from catching the ball. Pool clearly broke in front of him and caught the ball before it got to Johnson, and the interference didn’t have anything to do with Pool’s pick. If you really can’t see that then you’re being biased.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Poteat admitted as much. His quote was something along the lines of, the ball goes in the air, I try to push my guy out of the back of the endzone.
Players acknowledge that there is A LOT of jostling that happens to get in position for a hail mary. The fact it was called is where the surprise comes in. Most think of it the same way the last two minutes of an NBA game are called (as long as I don’t end up punching someone, I’ll probably get away with a lot more contact).
by Chief WaDrew on Nov 23, 2009 4:58 AM EST up reply actions
Poteat did try to force the WR out of bounds. Here’s his quote:
Once the quarterback rotated out of the pocket and they were in the end zone, you try to force the receiver out of bounds.
If he forces him out of bounds, that receiver can’t be the first to touch the ball if he comes back in bounds. I’m sure they are coached to try to do that. And, yes, just like the end of an NBA game, there’s a lot of contact that never gets called.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
This is one of the more interesting things I’ve read about this particular play. When the ball is in the air and you push someone, it is interference. But wouldn’t it still be illegal contact with the ball not in the air because it is beyond 5 yards from scrimmage? Even if it is true that they don’t usually call things on a hail mary, I’d think you’d want to keep it as clean as possible as the penalty in the end zone does two bad things: it gives them the ball on the 1 AND it gives them another play when the game should really be over.
Brownsyup
Apparently, once the quarterback is out of the pocket it is legal to force a receiver out of bounds and defensive backs do it regularly without getting called for it.
Want out of Cleveland? Easy - mess with LeBron's entourage.
by woodsmeister on Nov 23, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, that is correct. Grossi was talking about it on cleveland.com, and that’s what Mangini was saying to the refs after the flag, that the QB was out of the pocket so it’s legal to push a receiver out of bounds. Evidently, though, they can’t do it when the ball is in the air so that’s why the flag was thrown. I wasn’t aware of that rule.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Here’s the article about the interference call.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that article sums it up nicely.
I still think we got hosed.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
They call interference all of the time on plays even away from the ball. That was interference. Dumb though.
No they don’t. They may call defensive holding, but they never call interference on plays away from the ball. The be pass interference, a ball must be catchable. It’s in the rule.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
Case in point, the Steelers vs the Vikings. TD pass to Santonio Holmes, but they called pass interference on the other side of the field on Heath Miller. No where near the ball, didn’t matter, but they still called PI.
It happens. It sucks, especially on a hail mary attempt, but it happens.
But if they called it on Heath Miller, then it’s offensive pass interference. How would they call offensive pass interference when the ball isn’t even throw to that player? I think you must be mistaken.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
No. Offensive pass interference can happen any time after the snap, and anywhere beyond the line of scrimmage. The ball need not be thrown at all.
OK, maybe that’s true for offensive PI, but not defensive PI. If it’s away from the ball then they call defensive holding, not inteference.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
Not mistaken. It was called PI.
What you are saying is that they never call PI away from the ball, and I think you are wrong.
More video, another angle......
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-sound-efx/09000d5d8147c551/Sound-FX-Matthew-Stafford-mic-d-up
Check the 3:56 mark. Poteat with his back to the play, not making a play on the ball, pushing Bryant Johnson out of the back of the end zone, at the spot where the trajectory of the pass was headed (see earlier replay for trajectory). Then another DB at 3:59 with his back to the play pushing down Calvin Johnson. Pass interference. Hank Poteat made Shutdown Corner’s LVP’s of the week:
Hank Poteat(notes), Cornerback, Cleveland Browns. When Matthew Stafford(notes) scrambled out of the pocket before his desperation heave into the endzone yesterday, Hank Poteat thought, “Hey, I better not let Calvin Johnson(notes) catch this.” That part was good. But Hank Poteat also thought, “If the quarterback leaves the pocket, it’s okay for me to run around and indiscriminately tackle wide receivers at my own whim. Wheee!” Unfortunately, this rule exists only in Hank Poteat’s head. He shoved Calvin Johnson out of the back of the endzone, got flagged for it, and Stafford made the Browns pay.
Poteat also was a Goat of the Game for Chris Pokorny here on Dawgs by Nature:
Hank Poteat: As frustrated as I was after the pass interference flag was thrown on Matthew Stafford’s heave to the end zone, the blame ultimately falls on veteran Hank Poteat. This wasn’t the typical Hail Mary heave where eight different players are all colliding with each other in an attempt to catch or knock the ball down. Near Poteat, there might have been three players.
Poteat also
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
I can’t believe more people aren’t outraged at the coaches for throwing the ball on 3rd and 5 coming out of the 2 minute warning. We don’t even get to this point if we run it.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 22, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
+ eleventy billion.
Dumbest call. They had NO TIMEOUTS. That is 40 seconds we gave them. This was Les Miles like clock managment.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Ha! Starting to see my point? Football employees are not talented managers/execs. Dull tools in an overhyped but dull shed.
Huh? Maybe I am too dull to get what this guys is saying..
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions
Because you’re doing enough of the whining for everybody.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Thats not whining, that is wondering why this coaching staff is unable to grasp simple nuances of football.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
It’s whining to blame the staff for an unacceptable loss?
Agree with Dorn, weak comment
"There's nothing that cleanses the soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." Woody Hayes.
People do not know sarcasm. Jeez.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. Very, very poor.
And you’ve always had trouble with my sarcasm.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Me? There were three other people who responded to your comment and didn’t get your sarcasm.
And what do you mean by I’ve had trouble with your sarcasm? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
Remember when I said I hated something and you said something along the lines of “Whoa, hates a strong word…” and you didn’t know it was sarc .
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t remember, but sarcasm is difficult to pick up on the internet unless you make it very obvious or people know you well enough to know when you’re being sarcastic.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
I knew right away it was sarcasm.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Nov 23, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If they get the first down they are geniuses…did spell that right? lol
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 8:34 AM EST up reply actions
that is a great point, and they really should have run the ball. The problem is that its hard to get as angry about taking a shot at finishing the game compared to a misinterpretation of the rules of the football by professional refs
Being a Browns fan isn't always fun but somebody's gotta do it
I’m not upset that we passed it, but I’m upset that continue to repeatedly eliminate the threat of running the ball in those situations. We should’ve had a running back in the backfield who would’ve been ready to pick up the blitzer, make Quinn a tad more comfortable, and deliver the first-down throw to Massaquoi.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 22, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
this was my thought. i’m perfectly ok with passing, but leave the possibility of a run open to the defense by leaving a back in.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
And we repeatedly did this all game too (not having a running back in the backfield in similar situations). Why give that extra “tell” to the defense? We’re not even deep enough at receiver to warrant five wide so often.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 22, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
And if you pick up the first down then you win the ballgame. It’s a similar principle to Belicheck’s decision and it has to do with win probability.
True. But we don’t have Tom Brady and they don’t have Peyton Manning.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
How does the eligibility rule work? I’m not familiar with that one- and that would make the Cleveland TO a coaching error.
When a injury time out is called, the injured player must sit out on play.
Stafford was injured. Cullpepper came in. The Browns called a time out because we were not ready for the play.
Since a time out was called, that in the eyes of the NFL is a play. Stafford was then able to re-enter the game.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, indeed. If the announcers hadn’t of confused me, I would’ve never mentioned the eligibility situation in the first place.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Nov 22, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
I’m angry now.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Nah. I mean, I agree that the pressure is on the Lions and it let them regroup. (and stafford more time). But I couldn’t believe Stafford came back in.
The defense calling a TO there was pretty basic. First, they didn’t like the personnel matchups and the coaches could see what formation the Lions wanted to be in. The Browns had timeouts, so if they didn’t have they didn’t feel comfortable with the matchup, you take the timeout, no question.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
That rule was still in play for that season too! That would have sent us to the POs
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
how am i supposed to study for an ap government quiz when i’m so fn pissed? ugh! i can’t believe this.
I don’t understand why you guys all think we would have been better off running the ball on 3rd and 5. I doubt we can convert it and you don’t know how detroit play calling changes with 1:20 instead of 2:00 (maybe they actually throw the sideline?). If we convert that catch…which if quinn and stepped into his throw likely would have, the game is over, end of story. I support the call, even if that’s an unpopular point of view.
90 yards in 1:20 with no timeouts and a rookie QB.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
Did no one see Stafford’s numbers and our defense? I think that argument holds weight in a vacuum, but game circumstances could say differently. I’m really just saying I have no problem going for the win right there.
I can see what you’re saying, I just think that a rookie QB would have little chance to go 90 in 1:20 with no timeouts.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
It’s just such a different scenario when you have to do it all in 1:20. 40 seconds in that situation is an enormous difference.
As I said, I don’t mind going for the win, especially with the way our defense was playing. I agree with Chris that we shouldn’t have gone with an empty backfield. But, again, we had a receiver open and if Quinn makes a good throw then game is over.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
But you are just adding to my point. The receiver may have been open, but we have a QB who has consistently had low completion percentages and countless mis-communications with his receivers this season. That we missed that one pass is not that surprising even if he was having a good game thus far.
No, I get what you’re saying. After all, I’ve spent years watching Tressel run the ball at times like that. But I guess I don’t like it when coaches get too conservative and don’t go for the win. And I didn’t trust our defense to hold a lead at all.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll give you the defense was shaky. It’s the same thinking Belichik was using, but this situation was even more in our favor to punt than the Colts game.
Right, we weren’t punting to Peyton. We were punting to a rookie.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
True, he would have been forced to use the sidelines on the drive, and not everything over the middle.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 8:37 AM EST up reply actions
I guess the difference is that was for the super bowl and this was for the toilet bowl…
I will say this, lets play them every year, natural rivalry, like Pats/Indy.
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 8:38 AM EST up reply actions
The playcalling changes in the sense they throw further downfield which makes completions a lot tougher since we are playing safeties deeper. The odds of an interception or incomplete pass are far greater. 1:20 with no timeouts and 88 yards would be an amazing accomplishment.
we’re also assuming we get as good of a punt. at this point, we have a punter we picked up off the street who hasn’t exactly shown himself to be an accurate punter. i’m way more comfortable putting the game in quinn’s hands there then banking on a good punt.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
I am assuming the punt is similar in either situation whether we run or pass. That should not be a defense for passing the ball.
Yeah, the punt really doesn’t matter either way.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
you’re still assuming you knew the result of the punt before it happened. If he shanked it out at the 40 i dont think you say the same thing…just sayin
Dude, the punt isn’t that big of a deal. We can assume the punt would be the same whether they ran the ball or passed — there is no reason to think any different.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
really? we can’t assume a punter that was bad enough to be unemployed might make the head coach a little less confident?
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Not really. I mean, is there really that much of a difference between punters? I doubt it. And we’re not asking him to place it inside the 5 or anything, just to get off a normal punt. I really doubt that Mangini was worried about getting a bad punt.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
yes, there really is THAT much of a difference. and maybe it gets returned for a td?
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree. The difference between the chance that Zastidul shanks a punt and Hodges shanks a punt is very, very small. Punts rarely get shanked in the NFL, so it’s not like some guys do it much more than others. It’s not really anything for the coaches to worry about.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
right, it rarely happens in the nfl, because they are nfl punters. hodges is not an nfl punter, or do you think he’s been on the team all season?
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
Hodges is an NFL punter. He’s played 25 games in his career. I know he’s new to the Browns but that doesn’t mean he’s never punted in the NFL before.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
there’s a reason he didn’t have a job this year, whoever he was with last year obviously didn’t think he was capable.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
OK, I’m done with this conversation. This is getting ridiculous. The idea that there are only 32 punters who are NFL-worthy in this world, and everyone else who isn’t currently on a team (or wasn’t before last week) is some hack who we can’t trust to not shank a punt is just ridiculous.
There isn’t much difference between punters, Sure, some have a stronger leg and some have better aim, but expecting a guy who’s punted many times before to punt without shanking one isn’t unreasonable. If you really think there’s that much of a difference then I don’t know what to tell you. There isn’t some huge dropoff between the 32 guys who currently have a job and other punters with recent NFL experience. Punting just isn’t that difficult of a job.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
ok, forget the shanking possibility, lets focus on the opportunity for it to be returned for a TD.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Right. The probability of that is so small that it’s not something to worry about. When you punt the ball, you expect the punt team to be able to cover the punt. And it’s not like the Lions have a dangerous return man, either. Maybe if Cribbs was back there you’d be worried, but you could always just punt away from him.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
like i said, it was far from the number 1 thing, just something else to consider
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
The bottom line is this:
3rd and 5, Browns ball, up 6. 2 minutes left. The second you punt, the odds for winning go way down (still favorable, but way down). A first down and you win. You call the play that is most likely to get you 5 yards.
Now, like Chris, I didn’t necessarily love the design of the play. I think a play action roll out, or a draw could have kept the ball in bounds. But Massaquoi beat his man, Quinn has a second to deliver the ball and just overthrew him. It wasn’t a BAD play call.
1:50 or 1:20, not as big of a difference as chances of making the first down.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Mangini in his post game press conference stated that he thought Quinn should have taken the sack, implying that he knew an incompletion would be the worst possible outcome.
I know the play was open, but for precisely the reason that we have an inexperienced QB and young WRs who have been running wrong routes all season, we need to be 100% certain that the completion happens. After watching Quinn throw the ball 10 yards over Furrey’s head last week on a lateral screen pass, there is no way I would have passed the ball there.
I don’t know that Quinn’s inaccuracy can play too much of a role in this decision. He had been pretty accurate on those routes all day. And an NFL QB should be able to make that throw.
My thing is the execution. You have to make the perfect throw there. If you can’t because of pressure, then Quinn should have known the situation and taken the sack. Maybe Mangini should have taken this out of Quinn’s hands, but I don’t blame him for trusting his players there.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
you missed my point. my point was mangini doesn’t necessarily have confidence that his punter is going to put the ball inside the twenty, so why not go for the win. of course knowing that the punt went off well we assume it would happen again, but like i said, there’s a reason this guy needed an injury to get a job, he’s not consistent and could have easily shanked that punt. if we get a first down there the game is over.
basically this came down to whether mangini was confident in his defense or his offense, and for this game i think he made the right choice.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
to be more clear, i mean that cundiff’s inability probably factored into mangini’s decision. i don’t mean it was the main factor at all, but its something to consider.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
The third down call is questionable but not egregious to deserve more angry response by Browns fans than the PI call. If you want to play the game of assuming comparable outcomes, like the same punt, then I think we can assume another choke job by the refs on the Hail Mary at the end. It’s more than likely that Stafford would have managed to get to midfield for 1 or 2 Hail Maries. At that point can’t we assume the same outcome?
Agree that a run might have been better, but does playing for a win like that really make the team better? Does the victory really matter to a 1-8 team? 1-15, 2-14, 3-13, 4-14… In the grand scheme, did that call keep us from our opportunity of reaching the 2010 Super Bowl?
On the other hand, the end of the game reinforces the pathetic officiating this season.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Nov 22, 2009 6:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
this is exactly what i was trying to say. running the ball there assumes the same outcome from the punt on out. what if the punt is returned for a touchdown? and like you said, why don’t we just assume the hail mary works still?
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:29 PM EST up reply actions
But the punt could have been returned for a TD after he called the passing play, too. That outcome is irrelevant of the decision to run or pass on third down.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
no its not, are you more likely to get a first down on a pass play or a run play with 5 yards to go? a run play implies you want to punt and play defense, a pass play implies you want to end the game right there.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:36 PM EST up reply actions
But that’s not what you’re arguing! You’re changing the subject, now. Nobody is arguing that you’d have a better chance of getting a first down by passing so I don’t know why you’re even bringing that up. How did you possibly get that idea from my comment?
You were talking about the decision as it relates to the punter as his chance of shanking the punt, and you said he went for the first down because he was worried about Hodges shanking the punt. That is what I’m disagreeing with.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
i’m not changing the subject, you said the punt could have been returned for a TD after a pass play too. my point was that the pass was trying to avoid the punt altogether and take that possibility out of the equation. so the outcome of the punt is not irrelevant to the decision on third down. the outcome of that punt could potentially be a huge negative, so why not try to avoid it on third down, which you would do by passing.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:47 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, the punt could have been returned for a TD, just as the pass on third down could have been picked off and returned for a TD. So you could take example either way, but both of those were unlikely.
Also, the punt could have been returned for a TD even if Zastidul was punting so I still don’t know what all this has to do with your original point about not having confidence in Hodges.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
hodges doesn’t have the hang time or accurate leg of zastudil, so the chance of a punt being returned for a touchdown is a little bigger. thats my point.
also, the percentage of punts returned for TD’s is higher than the percentage of attempted passes returned for TD’s, so you can’t take that example either way. plus, you can assume the quarterback would be more careful with the ball in that situation. you can’t assume the punt coverage would somehow play better on that play, so the gap is even larger.
again, to be PERFECTLY CLEAR i’m not saying this was the main reason for doing it, i’m just saying its one more thing to factor in. the main reason was mangini had no confidence in the defense, and you can’t blame him for that.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Has anyone bothered to look at the player profiles of both Hodges and Zastudil? Zastudil is clearly the better punter, averaging a full 5.5 yards/punt better than Hodges. Also, in every game in which Zastudil has punted this year, he has had at least a long punt of 50 yards. Hodges’ longest punt for the year is 50 yards and he’s done it once.
That said, I don’t think the punter was the determining factor in Mangini’s decision making — and, in fact, I’m not sure it was any factor at all. I think he was simply trying to seal the game with a first down pass. At the time, I thought maybe they should have run it to burn more clock. Then again, if you pick up the first, you are sure to win, and you aren’t forced to take any chances with your defense at all.
Especially in light of the fact that we lost on a crap call on a hail mary pass, I’m not gong to Monday morning QB Eric Mangini’s decision here.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
exactly. there are tons of these types of decisions we could nitpick. off the top of my head i know we punted from about 38 yards out at least once. thats a 55 yard field goal, and i think thats borderline as far as phil dawson’s range goes. in a dome i would like to see a field goal there. but it didn’t happen in the last 3 minutes of the game, so nobody cares.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
i guess what this comes down to for me is that i’m ok with people disagreeing with the call, its a perfectly ok thing to disagree with, i just don’t think the decision is a no-brainer by any stretch. i think to be so upset about it is some serious monday morning quarterbacking.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
This was not a hindsight judgment. You saw Arizona do the correct thing in their game yesterday in the same exact situation. It just doesn’t leave the other team enough time to do anything.
I’ve said as much that we could have elected to run the ball there — and also that, at the time, I thought they’d choose a run play. At the same time, if we pick up the first down, we increase our chances of winning by reducing the Lions’ chances from, as you say, “extremely unlikely” to virtually zero, as we line up in the so-called ‘victory formation’ and kneel the ball.
We lost in the most unlikeliest of ways, on a TD when the clock read 0:00.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
I agree a completed pass gives us basically a 100% chance of victory, but given the nature of who we have running these plays (despite a fine performance mostly yesterday), I would have run no question.
Yeah, and while I would still emphasize the penalty for costing us the game, I think that’s the strongest argument for the run there: the likelihood for QB-WR miscommunication and the general inconsistency they’ve show throughout the year.
by Western Reserve on Nov 23, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t mind questioning the choice to pass. I just don’t get the over-blaming of the coaching staff. It was a tough call. And the loss is on the defense and that pass interference call (whether that is on the officials or Poteat is also close).
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
as i spelled out in another post, it was far from the same situation. the browns D had been ineffective for the last three quarters, the rams had been inept all day except for two drives.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but I am basing my decision on the entire season to date and not just on what happened in yesterday’s game.
True statements:
1. Browns offense has been horrific
2. WRs have run wrong routes all season leading to incomplete passes
3. Our QBs have been remarkably inaccurate
4. The Lions offense has also been putrid and the idea of them scoring a TD in 1:20 going 88 yards with no timeouts is EXTREMELY unlikely
Again this is all based on my perception of the entire season. You may want to base it more off of yesterday’s game, but with the game on the line and unproven players on offense, I think the smartest decision is to be conservative.
i’m going to repost what i had on the last thread since everyone moved here before it could be read.
positives:
1) quinn was awesome. 304 yards, 4 TDs, and no interceptions. it wasn’t just dink and dunk this time. he actually took risks and shots down the field. his passes were right on target for the most part. say what you want about it being the lions, but i don’t think you can have a game like that if you completely suck.
2) momass and stuckey. momass had a few drops, but both did really well. our WRs actually showed up for once.
3) cribbs was amazing, as usual. i liked how they used him on the offense today.
4) chris jennings played really well. jamal was pretty good too.
5) the steelers lost to the chiefs :)
6) three two interceptions by the defense
7) we scored 37 points in 1 game, whereas we had about 77 in all the games this season.
i think there is a lot of positives today … but we were playing the lions … so im not convinced until this is done consistently against the rest of the teams
Nice summary emily. Good to recall the bright spots despite an outcome that makes you want to drive your head through the nearest wall….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions
well i’m out of here. i have to study :( nice thread today, too bad we couldn’t pull off a win in the end! if you’re feeling down, just think of how pathetic steeler fans must feel now!
Big Ben is seeing stars.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
Bad O= Good D
Good O= Bad D
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
Last year in the 10th game, we beat the Bills and our record was 4-6. Romeo Crennel was our coach and Brady Quinn was our starting QB.
If you were asked at that time, would you prefer Romeo or Mangini as the coach, how would you vote?
are we forgetting the jets were 8-2 or something like that?
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
Mangini would have been coaching the jets
by Sizemorgasim on Nov 22, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions
i would rather have an 8-2 coach than a 4-6 coach, but maybe thats just me…
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions
Why does it matter what he did last year. And you are cherry-picking stats because after they were 8-2 they only won one more game
by TheRealSlimShady on Nov 23, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
um, maybe you didn’t read the initial post, but the question was “If you were asked at that time, would you prefer romeo or mangini as the coach?”
after ten games last season, mangini was the obvious choice. after ten games this season, i don’t really know. but that wasn’t the question.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Mangini. Not close.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
what are the odds of monkeys writing nasty e-mails to fans?
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not easy to trade down — you have to find someone to trade with, and not many people want the first pick because of large salary the player gets.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
It may be hard, but you can trade down for the right price. The last thing the Browns need is another prima donna.
Huh? Who says the #1 pick will be a prima donna?
And, no, there isn’t always a “right price”. Many teams don’t want the #1 pick — look at the history of the NFL draft and you’ll see there aren’t many trades for the top pick. And you’re not going to give it away for crap.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
If the Jets weren’t so crazy over Sanchez we might not even have got out of 5th this year. It’s completely about who wants that 1st pick and whether there is a true number 1 pick out there.
Don’t say that! You’ll make TRSS cry!
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
well i’m out of here. i have to study :(
Jokes.
Well let’s say the Rams get the 3rd or 4th pick. Unless they think we want Clausen, then they won’t have to trade up. Detroit sure as hell aren’t going for another QB.
haha. i am studying though.
ymy thinking was the rams may think we want clausen. b/c there are a lot of possibilities for us with the #1 pick. among them: berry, suh, clausen.
i really don’t want clausen, and if brady plays well the rest of the season there’s no reason to get him.
weis as oc would be great. he could make brady into the qb he said he’d be.
Clausen isnt a top 10 pick, he should be in the top 3
by Sizemorgasim on Nov 22, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
The 1st is not that bad. I actually prefer the first pick over 2 thru 10, where you have the high likelihood of a TC holdout. With the first pick we have the luxury of signing the guy to a contract before making te selection.
Any idea on how the cap-free season plays into rookie contracts? Can we front load the signing bonus to 2010 and not have that around our neck for 2011-2014?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Nov 22, 2009 6:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Cap free means Cap free.
I’m pretty sure there are no rookie restrictions.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Cool! Then giver the first pick. The contract doesn’t matter as it had in past seasons.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Nov 22, 2009 6:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Very interested
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 22, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
if we get him, that would be amazing.
i’m kind of confused as to what position he would have. what would he do?
the thinking is he would hold a position similar to bill parcells’ position in miami, which i think is VP of football operations
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN is reporting he is gonna wait to see about the Seattle GM position, the current one expires this year and they havent upped it….and he has a home in Seattle….
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
I’m sure that Lerner is more upset that Aston Villa went winless for the 23nd straight time
at Burnley yesterday. AV is about to lose its grip on 5th place in the Premier League,
but at least they have a future.
Do you think Lerner has a clue about the Browns?
Why would you think he cares more about soccer than football? There is absolutely no evidence of that.
Yes, I think he does have a clue about the team. That’s why he’s looking in to making changes.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
he’s whiffed on Savage, Crennel, and Kokinis so far, not counting the bad hires he inherited from his family
Other than Mangini, all of Lerner’s hires have been well thought of around the league when he made them.
Hindsight is 20/20.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
Do you really think he would have made different hires if he didn’t own a soccer team? I don’t see how those two things have anything to do with each other.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
I think he likes the idea of a single guy running the show. I can imagine him hoping that Mangini would be to the Browns what MON is for Villa. But as we all know, that model doesn’t work nearly so well in the NFL.
Has he ever actually had full control of a team? I mean, he hasn’t had the GM/HC combo position like Holmgren, has he?
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Yes, he was head honcho in New York with the Jets and again in Dallas with the Cowboys.
It was such a big deal when he went to Dallas because no one thought that Jerry Jones would allow Parcells to be his own GM. But he did and Parcells had a couple of very nice drafts with the Boys.
And remember, Parcells isn’t the GM in Miami, it is Jeff Ireland. That being said, Ireland is known as a Parcells flunkey so it is Parcells calling ths shots.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t remember his situation with the Jets. I was under the impression that Jones was still the GM while Parcells was there. I think he still signed off on every move. Unquestionably, Parcells had a lot of say- and some nice drafts- but I didn’t think it was full control.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
The reason he left New England was, in his words,
“If they want you to cook the dinner, at least they ought to let youshop for some of the groceries.”
The Jets made him GM/Head Coach. His wiki page, I know it’s not the greatest source, says that he was GM and Head Coach in NY but only HC in Dallas.
I am going to try and find a better source.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
I do remember that quote.
I trust you on the Jets, I honestly just don’t remember.
Still think Jerry Jones has had the GM title and final say since Jimmy Johnson in Dallas.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
I just remember that the Ware and Spears picks were Parcells because he wanted to switch to a 3-4.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
Hard to get too upset when a 1-8 team loses a game. We can hope that the game will build confidence for Quinn personally and for the offense generally.
I can get upset when the team loses because of atrocious clock management.
From the third down call to the last TO, this one is on the coaching staff.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
the third down call is only something you can find fault with using hindsight, and maybe they called the TO because the defense was totally out of position.
I understand being upset over a really tough loss, especially this one, but lets not abandon rationality.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
No, I’m sure many people weren’t happy about the third down call before it happened. I said that I supported it but you can’t say that the people who didn’t like it are only using hindsight. That’s an obvious situation to run the ball and use clock . . .many coaches would have done it. So it’s not just hindsight to disagree with that call.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
Correct. As soon as they came out in an empty set, I said to myself “this better be a QB draw.”
It isn’t hindsight to understand clock management.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
ok i didn’t say that right, you can disagree with the call but it only becomes an error after knowing the outcome. at the time of the call its simply a difference of opinion. at the time, it comes down to whether you trust the offense or the defense, and i personally find no fault in mangini for going with the offense there.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Hindsight only? I admit there is reasonable debate on both sides, but to ignore the difference 40 seconds makes and say it’s a hindsight only argument is just wrong. I was furious at the time when we decided to pass on that play. In the end, it ended up biting us badly since Detroit had just enough time to get downfield. I don’t see how you can’t even admit that 40 fewer seconds would have made a difference.
i’m saying we can’t know whether it would have made a difference, but we know a first down would have.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:56 AM EST up reply actions
I’m sorry NTN, but if you think we can’t evaluate the decision because we don’t know for certain what happens after a run….then you are on your own island there. Probably not worth trying to convince us otherwise. No one here is going to approach decisions that way. We don’t know for sure what would happen, but we can speculate based on probabilities.
by dgcambridge on Nov 23, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
i’m saying its still up in the air. i’m not saying you don’t have a fair criticism, but i’m saying the lions still could have won the game with 40 less seconds. it didn’t look too hard for them to get what they wanted against our defense, who’s to say they don’t attack the sidelines and make it to the 50 in time for a hail mary? however, we do know for sure that if they get the first down, the game is over, so why not go for the sure thing?
yes, there is less of a chance of losing with 40 less seconds, but there’s zero chance of losing with a first down.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
i guess i just mean i don’t have a problem with an aggressive play call and trying to put away the game.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree wholeheartedly.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
You don’t think that the Browns had a complete and total collapse in the clock managment department?
The pass on third down. Mistake.
Calling a TO because we didn’t have the right personnel. Mistake. Why did the Browns not have the right personnel on the field? The Lions were able to get the right people along with a back-up QB on the field in time. Their rookie head coach somehow was able to adapt on the fly. Why not the Browns? This was on the coaching staff. Not expecting the unexpected. The same thing happened in the LSU game.
The time-out before the last play not only allowed the Lions to get Stafford back onto the field, but it gave them extra time to compose themselves and run the winning play perfectly.
I don’t see how it breaks down any differently.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t.
I think the pass on third down was a debatable call. Like I said, I would have preferred a draw or a play action roll out pass to the full back or TE. Two plays we had success with. I have no problem calling the play you feel gives you the best chance to make the 5 yards that wins the game. Like Chris, I don’t like the design, and like Mangini said, I would have rather Quinn taken the sack if he wasn’t comfortable in the pocket. A tough call. But I don’t think the was a disaster.
The TO on the goal line is probably called by every coach when a goal line/2pt conversion play to decide the game is about to happen. You let them line up, see the formation and call timeout so you can adjust to that formation. They are going to call their best goal line play there. You want every advantage possible. That is pretty textbook. Now, I think it was a little more questionable because of the Stafford injury, and maybe you roll the dice so that a cold Culpepper and a disoriented and tired offense have to execute with the play clock running down. I didn’t think there as any chance Stafford was coming back, even with the timeout.
Both are at the least arguable. This game is on the defensive gameplan and execution.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
Yeah I have no problem with the TO at the goal line for the last play. That play is for the game and you want to make sure your defense is ready and you have the right personnel. The Brown still had their prevent defense out there with a 3-man line and a bunch of defensive backs, and that’s not what you want on the goal line. Culpepper could have probably ran it right up the middle for a TD. If the Lions score there then people would be complaining that Mangini didn’t call a time out to set up his defense.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
If that was the reason that the TO was called, why in the hell did the Browns have the wrong players out there?
There was an injury timeout and a penalty. There is no excuse for the Browns to have the wrong players out there. This wasn’t a hurry up situation. The Lions somehow got a goaline formation and a back-up QB on the field instead of 5 wide. The Browns can’t?
That is bothersome to me for a coaching staff that seems to stress smart football and doing the small things right.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
it wasn’t so much the package we had on the field as knowing what formation they were going to use. after knowing that we could fine-tune our defense to hopefully be able to stop them.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Did the Lions get a whole new formation on the field? I don’t remember that they did, but I could be wrong. It’s not hard to run a backup QB on the field, but changing a whole formation takes time. If the Lions did switch personnel and the Browns didn’t then that is a problem. Maybe they did and I missed it.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
They came out in a 3 TE heavy formation.
I thought the it was going to be a QB sneak with Culpepper.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 23, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
Similar situation to end the Cards-Rams game.
3rd and 7. Inside 2 minute warning. 1:56 left. Cards run the ball. Rams cannot stop the clock.
Clock runs down to 1:10 before the Cards call a TO.
Cards then punt to the Rams 25. 1:01 left. Almost a minute has been run off since the running play was called.
Rams cannot get offense going and turned the ball over on downs. Never threatened.
I am not saying that the Lions would have had no chance of winning, but it would have been much, much, tougher.
the rams hadn’t had an offense going all game, the lions had spent the last three quarters going up and down the field at will. totally different situation.
by notthatnoise on Nov 22, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
Actually the Rams had just went right down the field for a TD the possession before. They had all the momentum.
by Bernie19Kosar on Nov 22, 2009 9:14 PM EST up reply actions
one possession hardly indicates a trend
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
Your justification ignores time and goes entirely with “defense’s ability to stop the opposing team.” If I ignored the 40 seconds and remaining time on the clock, then I would agree with a pass because I was less than confident in our defense. When I factor in the time, I find it extremely unlikely for almost any offense to score in the scenario that would have been left.
i don’t think it would have been that hard for the lions to go to the sidelines and get within range of a hail mary, they only have to get to about their own 40. that means they need about 20 yards in 1:20 in order to attempt a hail mary. i just don’t think thats as unlikely as everyone else does.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
If the plays shook out the way they did with 40 fewer seconds, the Lions probably would have been attempting a hail mary from their side of the field or closer to the 50. It is still very possible that Poteat shoves that guy out of bounds, I will grant you that.
right, so that 40 fewer seconds doesn’t mean as much as everyone is saying it does.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
It shows that the QB controversy in Cleveland is meaningless. The team’s other problems are dragging it down. If Gradkowski can win in Oakland, even he could win in Cleveland with the right support.
Sure, any QB can win on any team if he has good players around him. So what’s your point?
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
You’re a complete moron. You only show up when something absolutely terrible happens, and then it’s to talk about things that don’t matter and no one cares about. You do it on LGT too, and have been for years. Go to cleveland.com where you belong. You know nothing about sports.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
The link in your sig is the most pathetic attempt at pretension I’ve seen in a long look at many pretentious blogs. Therefore, you’re a complete ass. See how easy that is?
Put down your spitball shooter, kwoog.
I felt the exact same way when I read his comment. And I’m the unbiased party here.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 23, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously I don’t follow or agree with palcal’s line of thinking in this thread. But kwoog is WAY out of line. “You’re a complete moron” is ban-worthy. “You know nothing about sports” indicates what kwoog thinks he knows about himself, not at all what palcal may or may not be able to communicate. Both of these remarks speak volumes about kwoog and say nothing about palcal.
I already knew about Kwoog. And I don’t care about Palcal really. Stop trying to be his mother please.
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 23, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
Wrong Gradoski could not make it in Tampa Bay when there team was alot better then okaland and the Browns.It just shows any given sunday the sun can shine on a dogs ass is all.
by Brownsfan4ever on Nov 23, 2009 7:44 AM EST up reply actions
Isn't It Pathetic...
That so many of us are reduced to blaming refs for a loss TO THE LIONS WHEN WE WERE WINNING BY 3 TOUCHDOWNS?!
Blame refs all you want, today marks the lowest point in the history of the Browns.
I am disgusted by this team – Quinn’s big day is nothing to be excited about. EVERY QB does well against Detroit.
Lerner shouldn’t have even let Mangini on the team plane.
This my friends is rock bottom.
I’m sorry, but this is definately not the low point of the season. I think losing 34-4, or 31-3, or 30-6 is much, much worse. At least we moved the ball on offense today.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 22, 2009 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
My Last Comment This Season
Did you happen to notice who the Browns lost to today?
See ya next year.
You said you were outta here last week as well. Who needs fans like this.
by skipkirk on Nov 23, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i am a lions fan but
i agree we get a lot of trolls like him the best thing to do is just constantly ask
are you a lions fan?? yes or no???(in your case browns lol)
most the time they will ignore it so the answer would be no… so yea no mater what he says just ask that
Just Remember matt... what would Daunte do??
WTF!
The one Sunday I have to work and I miss us put up 37.
By looking at today’s stats, we DO have the WORST defense. Giving up 30+ points on a weekly basis effing sucks.
If you're at the table and you don't see a sucker..... you're it.
yeah i still think progress has been made on defense, but this game sure doesn’t help my argument. i guess i’ll just lean on the fact that more than half of our linebackers were injured.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
WOW...
Why do I continue to invest my emotion into this team? LOL… Well, there’s always the Bengals…
Plenty of room left on The Bengal Bandwagon
Chicken littles started jumping off the train today after the gift we gave the Faiders
by Danimal, Destroyer of Worlds on Nov 22, 2009 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
When a game is lost on the last play, there are any number of decisions/moments that get attention. In real time, not hindsight, I thought the Browns should have run on the 3rd & 5 to take 40 seconds off the clock. The only pass play should have been a screen. In real time, not hindsight, I thought the Browns should have rushed more than three guys against the Hail Mary. Why let the QB have time to throw?
This is just a bad team and it is like a virus. It infects everything from coaching decisions, to players committing blatant penalties in the end zone, to players not executing routine plays on both sides of the ball.
The whole season is an exhibition season where the goal is to find out who is still going to be on the team next year, what are the draft/FA needs, etc.
just because you had a different opinion doesn’t mean the coach’s decision was necessarily a bad one. sure, it looks bad that they lost, but there is a very valid defense of both of those decisions.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
The good and bad…
Good
- This was a fun game to watch for once. It wasn’t all about hoping that the defense or special teams made a big play.
- The ball was spread around on offense. Names we haven’t seen all year made an impact (Stuckey, Gaines)
- What happened to Quinn? It was like a different guy out there. I know it was Detroit but his timing was perfect, he bought time in the pocket, used lots of misdirection… things we haven’t seen from him all year. Maybe something to build on or another flash-in-the-pan like Denver last year? (crosses fingers, toes, eyes…) Also like how he protected the ball (no INTs). Dare I say he showed poise? Yup.
- Much better execution of plays on offense.
- More creative ways of getting the ball out of the backfield than I’ve seen all year—shovel passes, short screens, direct snap to Lewis, etc.
Bad
- What happened to our defense? I don’t see how they harass Flacco last week and hold him to no TDs passing and then let Stafford have all day in the pocket and throw for 5 TDs this week. With the play of the offense this week this should have been a blowout for the Browns.
- Too much confusion at the end of the game. The coaching staff seemed not to know what to do to give the team the best chance of protecting a lead. Should we excuse them because they haven’t had the opportunity to do so much this year? I don’t think so.
Yes, this was the lowly Lions. Only the second team we’ve played with a losing record and we really should have won this game. But I don’t think the lack of quality of the other team accounts for the huge change in offensive output this week. They almost played mistake-free. Dare we hope for a continuance of this spark showed today? I dare, I dare. Next week it is Cincy coming off a nasty defeat at the hands of the Raiders. They will be smarting from that one. Not a lot of chance of the Browns winning but it will be an interesting contrast of what we saw today. Someone said it best that from now on this is a kind of extended pre-season for next year. Man I’d love to see Quinn step up and be the QB we need to stabilize this offense. To which football god must we sacrifice to make this happen?
Brownsyup
by Brownsyup on Nov 23, 2009 12:21 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Well stated as usual, Brownsyup.
I’m at a loss to explain the defensive weakness, but am hoping against hope that this marks the re-emergence of the BQ the optimists thought we might have, instead of the BQ we’ve been seeing on the field lately.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 1:57 AM EST up reply actions
I’m at a loss to explain the defensive weakness,
our defense is one of the worst in the league. Where is the shock coming from? Our secondary sucks…big surprise
by The Licensed Pessimist on Nov 23, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
our defensive numbers are among the worst in the league, but i think they’ve played much better than the numbers show
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
That’s kind of my take. I thought the defense was better than this and growing. Defensively, the Monday night game looked pretty good.
We’ve had a lot of second half collapses when our offense has shown epic levels of awfulness, but this was a whole different situation. We let them get back in the game in the first half here.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
It is true that the statistics on defense are abysmal. I think the aggregate statistics are somewhat if not greatly impacted by the extra series that the Browns offense has been giving the opposition via turnovers and 3-and-outs. I wasn’t surprised that the defense was poor in pass coverage—that has been terrible all year. But we’ve been better in pass rush this year against better teams. That was the main surprise. To his credit, Stafford was getting rid of the ball quickly and buying time with his legs. The Browns run defense was pretty stiff and I think that ended up making the Lions go almost exclusively to the pass in the second half.
Passing Attempts 1st Half
Browns 17 Lions 16
Passing Attempts 2nd Half
Browns 17 Lions 27
I would have liked to have seen more blitzing in the second half, especially some of our faster guys. Our linemen and linebackers didn’t seem to have the speed to catch Stafford when they had the chance.
Brownsyup
I think browns fans use that as a justification but when watching the games, we see big plays being given up, tackles being missed and coverage being blown. And IMO thats what it boils down to. The D can’t tackle past the line of scrimmage, the middle of the field is always wide open, and our CB’s give up big plays. Our line has admittly played better this year but fundamentally our defense is still very pedestrian, the numbers show that and the product on the field shows that.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Nov 23, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
/agree. A defense can play great most of the time but if they give up big plays and 1st downs on 3rd and long the result is predictable.
Brownsyup
i agree with that assessment too, my point is that last year we didn’t play great most of the time, this year we do, thats progress. i didn’t say we had a good defense, i said they were getting better.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
They aren’t getting better though. They’re giving up as many points as they were last year and thats what’s important. It doesn’t matter if they were giving up 35 points per game over 3 quarters last year – but now they’re giving up 36 over 2 quarters. It all equates to a bottom ranked defense.
Maybe if you’re looking for some useless moral victory to make yourself feel better. But when it comes down to it; moral victories, 1 quarter of good defense and “but they’re getting kinda better in this area”s aren’t gonna help the other teams from scoring points through our weaknesses or allow our offense to score more points than the opposition.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Nov 23, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t disagree completely, and I won’t argue that the defense is actually good, but I do think it’s improving. (Or at least was before this week. Argh.) Today’s statistical bottom line isn’t everything.
Is your car equally broken if I take out the distributor cap and hide it as it is when I cut the spark plug wires, snap off the spark plugs, crush the catalytic converter and drain out all the oil? I mean, bottom line, either way it’s not going to run, right? And yet one scenario is a lot closer to being functional than the other….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
thank you, that perfectly illustrates my thoughts here.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
The outcome of your senario doesn’t work since the defense doesn’t “work” or “not work”, it based on an overall comparison to other teams. So if I have a car, and you have a car. I have a hybrid and you have some 1980 gas guzzler. You can do whatever you want; make sure the tires are inflated, clean the system, whatever. You will not be able to achieve my 40 mpg.
And ignoring these stupid analogies, like I said the browns aren’t any more “closer”. You can do whatever you want to a car but if you don’t have the keys, its not gonna work. The browns not having fundamentals is a car without keys
by The Licensed Pessimist on Nov 23, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
then you completely missed the point. they have the fundamentals now, but it requires more than fundamentals to be a good defense.
and to use your analogy, if you have a hybrid and we have a gas guzzler, all we need is an electric system to hook up to the gas engine. yes you can buy them, i didn’t just make that up. imagine the electric system as a few playmakers. we have the engine, we’re missing the part that puts us over the top.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
The whole defense 08 vs defense 09 debate to me is easily resolved by this question.
Rob Ryan or Mel Tucker?
Rob Ryan.
The Browns have some nice, solid players on the current defense. The problem is the penchant to give up the big play as Rocland was noting, and I think you can pinpoint that on a secondary that goes through some breakdowns, particularly at CB2 and the safety position. Pool got owned by Calvin Johnson yesterday, Brandon McDonald has been owned countless times on missed tackles, and the points usually follow in the form of 7 after these breakdowns.
The run D has been pretty impressive even after losing DQ who had been a stud to this point.
Fixes still needed for the defense: Safety, CB2 and please more pass rushers.
“Don’t pick at the metaphor, it leaves a nasty scab.”
All I meant was that sometimes there’s a minimum amount of talent and execution required across the board to reach the level of competence overall. (To be able to start the car, so to speak.) You might improve in some aspects without meeting that requirement, but that will be hard to see as long as you’re still not meeting that overall minimum….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 24, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
My question is … does the offensive play calling that we saw today give Daboll a little longer leash to prove himself? Or is it merely since we were going against the Lions defense which allowed us to be a little more loose with throwing the ball down the field.
I really enjoyed the play calling today on offense (even the obvious one which we have all talked about). I thought it showed that we weren’t afraid to take risks and throw it down the field. We trusted Quinn to make deep throws and from what I saw he did pretty well. He threw it so well I think a few time our WRs and RBs were surprised how easy the catch was. (Robiske and Jennings). Just my opinion.
I also really liked the play of Jennings. Where have we been hiding this kid!? I’ve seen him a few times before this season … but I think we should start to do a Lendale – CJ type of approach with him and Jamal. Now again this might be because of the Lions Defense, so for me … too early to tell.
Overall after I had a few hours to digest, play a round of golf and clear my head. I think we did a really good job today, sans our defense which seemed non existent. My hopes are that next week we can combine the Defense from the Ravens game and our Offense from this game and give the Bengals all they can handle. GO BROWNS!!!
I’d give Daboll a reprieve based on this game - but only a brief one. He’s still got a lot to make up for.
Despite the outcome, this week does make next week seem a lot more interesting.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 1:59 AM EST up reply actions
It is hard to take away anything permanent from this game. It was such an aberration at this point. I thought the play calling was light years ahead of what we’ve seen in the past games but matchups are everything in the NFL. There was a lot more opportunity to be creative against a poor defense. Having said that I still think that the improvement this week cannot be completely explained by the poorness of the Lion’s defense.
Brownsyup
I woke up the baby… at the end of this game…
Like Dorn, I was upset because of them not running the ball on third down… I hated the empty backfield call… AND Stucki not staying in bounds was really horrible… Stay in bounds… and that game was over… he only needed a first down… to stay in bounds would have essentially put the game out of reach… because then… then the decision to run it 3 times would have been obvious…
In addition to this… there were mistakes… before this… numerous defensive lapses… but the play that really hurts me was watching that ball bounce off of Jennings hands… that was a killer drop at that point in the game…
im also not so sure how all of the sudden they have a decent game plan… what happened during the first 9 games of the year??? I acutally liked what they did against buffalo… but this was the first time it looked like quinn came to play…
I also want to add that after I calmed down… I decided that in the grand scheme of things… this loss really doesnt mean that much… I mean… Im sure this team needed a win for its psyche… but they also need the first choice at players in each round of next years draft… at least they are one step closer to achieving that goal…
i think instead of all those ellipses you meant to use commas
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
to say nothing of the fact that this post is one giant run-on
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
I am in the bad habit of using ellipses at the end of sentences…
by Red-Right-88 on Nov 23, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
They leave you hanging…
Author of the segment "A Brownie For Your Thoughts," on DBN. Check it out.
by SpecialBrownie on Nov 23, 2009 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
hopefully now quinn continues to progress this year and we won’t have to draft another qb come april and can focus on other skill positions and defense
yeah it would be huge to be able to pick another position at the top of the draft this year.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
Despite all the bad calls and coaching desitions, it was a good game. Shoulda, woulda, coulda’s all you want, but the Lions were a better team then the Browns Sunday. If CJ wasn’t being held the game would’ve been over. poor play by the DB. but atleast Quinn put up good numbers against a bad defense, unlike DA did against Buffalo. Also this could give him confidence going into next week. It might give the coaches confidence in his abilities too.
My favorite play of the game was the Browns executing a successful field goal fake, so they could kick a slightly shorter field goal on the next play. Brilliant!
That’s not why the did the fake, obviously. The ran the fake hoping to catch the defense off guard and the receiver would be able to score a TD. Unfortunately, the defense saw the receiver and covered the pass but it was a nice try. They wouldn’t run a fake just to gain 5 yards.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 23, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
i also think they might have thought they would have enough time for one more shot at the end zone. after the fake i think there was like 6 seconds or something, which is just slightly too little time to attempt another play. had there been 8 or 10 seconds they might get another shot at a TD before kicking a field goal.
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Gradkowski is not that good but he showed good leadership and execution when it counted in the upset of Cincinnati yesterday.
His record as a starter is 4-9. We all hope Quinn is better than Gradkowski but his career record as starter is 1-7 and we would be elated if he could match Gradkowski’s win total by the end of the year. The Cleveland D is going to have to step up for him to get 3 wins; Quinn is not going to score 40 points every game.
If your point above was that you cannot evaluate QBs out of context, then it doesn’t make much sense to compare Quinn’s win total against Gradkowski’s.
If you were trying to say that, apart from the most elite quarterbacks, qb performance is a.) relative to team strengths and b.) has huge variation, then yeah, I’d agree. If you are trying to say that somehow, the particular comp of Quinn vs Gradkowski is somehow revealing, then I don’t see it.
I’m certainly looking forward to it a lot more than I would have been if this were a 30-3 blowout!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Nov 23, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
yeah i mean if our offense under DA put up 20 something points on cinci, what will the new powerhouse vertical threat offense do? I’m guessing at least 70 points
by notthatnoise on Nov 23, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
It’s all subject to how they game plan it. Unfortunately Cinci has a better defense, so I’m worried that we’ll be looking at nothing but short routes and throws behind the LoS again. If Daboll actually decides to go back to that type of game then I think it’s time to show him the door.
haha
who woulda thought, the game that nobody wanted to see is a cantidate of being game of the year.
Here's a great video from the NFL Network
Mike Pereira, VP of NFL Officiating, on the NFL Network explaining and showing on video why the calls on the field were correct for the final sequence of plays. Excellent detail on the rules.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8147e425/Week-11-official-review
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Smarter Stats: Super Bowl Edition — New England’s offense vs. New York’s defense
- Puppy Bowl VIII: The Scouting Report
- Giants get ahead of themselves with ‘Super Bowl Champions’ home page … on Saturday
- Smarter Stats: Super Bowl Edition — Giants’ offense vs. Patriots’ defense
- Curtis Martin’s mother helped drive him to the Hall of Fame
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
