Vikings vs. Browns - 4th Quarter Game Thread
by Chris Pokorny on Sep 13, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
in General News
341 comments
The Browns are down 24-13 in the fourth quarter. Can we come back and prevail to victory?
0 recs |
341 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
C'mon boys you have to give the D some rest
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Time to admit it, I thought Quinn would play better. He’s been awful today.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
He should be playing better, but some of those came from mis-communications. He should get better as the season progresses.
by BrownDawg1409 on Sep 13, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
wow. that was...
just terrible
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
After throwing to Cribbs a lot in the preseason we’ve done nothing to him so far today.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
We called the identical wildcat play twice in row where Cribbs gets stuffed in or behind the line of scrimmage……..
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
I'm really disappointed about the lack of 3WR and 4WR sets
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That was pretty bad, but it’s been bad on 2/3 plays.
Quinn is good at short,quick passes. Let him do that. We’ve gotten the run going, but haven’t really done any play action to routes that aren’t go routes. We should have a lot more crossing routes and ins vs their D. Maybe they are happening outside of the TV screen, but jeez.
Does anyone here actually think we can pull this off? Our offense looks good for an average of one play per drive.
Seems like all Minn. has to do is run the ball down our throats now.
That’s the warrior’s spirit!
Pumped up to the maxxxx!!!!!
by BrownDawg1409 on Sep 13, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
theres always a chance
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Sheesh…big break there with the Vikings dropping two passes on that drive.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
Well, alright. Obviously need to do something on this drive.
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:26 PM EDT reply actions
huh...that Grooler thing is actually kinda awesome
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
aw crap not Davis
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
The play calling is terrible. Given, we are playing a Super Bowl caliber team, I wonder how long Mangini will last…
I still try to reserve judgement until Week 3 or so but it’ll be hard.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
…Wow. Wonder how long Mangini will last?!
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
its the first game, dude.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
there ya go!
on a bad snap too
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Please leave. We don’t need a Packers fan here making fun of the Browns.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh. My. GOD
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
you canNOT be serious with that., Brady.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
First half was solid, second half is pretty disastrous.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
defeatist attitude not really helping
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
If you continue the immature comments and name-calling then you will be banned. That’s not what we want here.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re making rude comments and being a jerk. Not me mention all the idiotic stuff about Notre Dame which has nothing to do with this game.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
rec'd for endorsement
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
They really laid an egg in the third quarter. All things considered, I think it’s a C- at best. 27 points is bad.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
they got no help from the offense, though
they were bound to wear down
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t buy this argument very often. It was two drives. Don’t give up 20 yards on 2nd and 18. Don’t give up 11 on 3rd and 10, and you’d be off the field. The Vikings OLine didin’t look gassed.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
D not giving up. Good to see
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Nice job D. Still a two-possession game
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:35 PM EDT reply actions
The D can’t win this game themselves, but they’re hanging tough.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
And watch our chance go down the drain!?
by BrownDawg1409 on Sep 13, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
wHY Are you Even HEre
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
is bargaining or acceptance next?
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
We got beat by a better team. When we were predicting 7 or 8 wins hardly any of us expected to win this game
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
So your ok with playing to lose.
And it ends with a TD anyway.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
I’m not okay with giving the other team the ball in field goal range. We were down 2 scores — we could have still made a defensive stop and had a chance to win. There were still 6 min. left. You don’t go for it there with that field position.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
like watching the oversized kid in a pop Warner game
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, shoulda gone for it on 3rd down.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
tackling FAIL
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Mangini is playing this politics style that Romeo did.
Stupid. Playing to LOSE but by less. Well it fails, and they score anyway.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
by Simmsinns on Sep 13, 2009 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No he’s not. Every coach would have done the same thing.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, look on the bright side:
Baltimore is tied with KC.
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:45 PM EDT reply actions
I was going to say this, but they look like they might stuff it in right now.
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha. Ditto and it’s not even close.
Levity fail on my part.
by DisplacedBuckeye on Sep 13, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
this
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
well, time to start drinking
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Quinn is awful
Get D.A. in there he’s got a cannon
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hi Flag Up.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
How quickly they turn.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 13, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
um, no
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t change QB’s in the first game.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
The point is that he should never have started in the first place when Anderson is clearly better; I’m sorry if that makes me sound like a troll, but I just don’t understand it.
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
How do you know Anderson is clearly better? Quinn hasn’t had the chance to play yet — we don’t know how good he is.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
We’d be here for days if we talked about everything you don’t understand.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
well that's not very friendly
but remember Anderson WAS a Pro Bowl quarterback; judging by how he played last year and in college I’m not confident that Quinn will ever play at that level
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
DA was terrible last year. Once again, Quinn hasn’t played enough to judge him yet.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
He deserves a second chance. Quinn’s only the starter because he was a high draft pick. Winslow just scored a TD
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
You’ve probably put all of 5 minutes of thought into this point of view. You’re on a Browns board, where we’ve spent over a year talking about this. You’re not adding anything.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
At least I’m polite. I’m also right whether I’ve been bickering with people before today or not. You’re making me very happy that USC won last night.
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Then why dont you leave?
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
No, you’re not right. Don’t you think that Browns fans know more about the situation than you do?
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I never pretended that I know more than a browns fan about their own team
Frankly however, I do know more than enough about the situation to discuss it but apparently no one’s willing to do it in an orderly fashion because I’m not a “Browns Fan.” I also know (and you all seem to forgotten) that the competition was extremely close and supposedly undecided until very recently. The ONLY way to be sure which one to go with is to see them both in game action. The only reason not to put D.A. into a game that was already decided would be the supposed importance of sticking behind one guy at that position but I think we can all agree that Mangini already screwed that up some time ago. This is outside of my personal belief that D.A. is a better quarterback. You remind me of Bears fans.
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
First of all, you have to understand that this has been discussed ad nauseum already on this site. We’re not going to go through the whole conversation again. It has nothing to do with you not being a Browns fan. If you want to find out what we think then you can search the site to find our comments.
Also, I don’t think the competition was “extremely close”. Just because Mangini waited to announce the starter doesn’t mean he thought it was close; he just wanted to give them both a fair shot. Most Browns fans think DA has proven that he’s inconsistant and have seen enough of him to know that he’s not the long-term answer. We haven’t seen enough of Quinn to judge him and we want to find out if he can be our QB for the future. Nobody knows how Quinn will perform given an opportunity.
My problem is with you saying that you know DA is “clearly better.” You don’t know that, and nobody does. So please don’t come here and act like you know who should be starting then get upset when we don’t want to talk about this for the hundreth time.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Mangini described it multiple times as 50-50
but I have heard that he’s dishonest. True, no one knows for sure who’s better but even when Anderson was bad he still looked better than Quinn to me. My suggestion was that it was a good time to bring D.A. in because he may have provided a spark and he might play differently in the new offense. I understand if you don’t want to talk about who should start but if you look it’s pretty clear that that’s not what I was saying, nor did I get upset about you all not wanting to discuss the situation, I just don’t appreciate being insulted for no good reason but upon further review it’s just the one fellow and I see that you’ve had difficulties with him before so I am sorry for generalizing. As a footnote, I simply believe that Anderson is better for very good reasons and will argue for him if challenged and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it would have been a good idea to bring in DA and bench Quinn the first game. Mangini said that when he made that move he was going to give Quinn mutliple games to prove himself. You don’t want to have your starting QB looking over his shoulder the whole game. It was good for Quinn to score a TD on that last drive to get more practice and hopefully get some confidence going in to next week. I think it’s important for the Browns to stick with Quinn for 8 to 10 games to see what he can do when given the opportunity. That’s the only way to make a good judgement about him.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions
If he keeps playing this badly we’ll find out just how short his leash is
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The Packers only have 10 pts right now. Do you suggest benching Rodgers? No, because one game against a good defense doesn’t mean EVERYTHING.
Such was not my implication. Rodgers is about to win, and if you’ve been watching he’s only made one real mistake. Good coverage, penalties, and bad play on the offensive line are keeping the offense in line, but we are still going to win and that’s the difference. Now watch this drive
by Donald Driver on Sep 13, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
A team winning has to do with a lot more than just the QB.
And, once again, it was just one game. One game.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 14, 2009 6:21 AM EDT up reply actions
If you were watching the browns, you’d realize our problems were a lot more plentiful than Quinn not playing well.
When its your guy, you blame the line, the penalties, and give credit to the coverage. When its our guy, you blame him.
you guys dont' seem to get my point here
I’m not saying bench Quinn. Not unless he has more games like this one. You are right though-I am saying that Rodgers has excuses for yesterday that Quinn does not. Quinn’s offensive line gave him more time. Quinn was facing a lesser secondary. Quinn wasn’t constantly being backed up by holding and false start penalties. And what happened? Quinn held on to the ball too long and got sacked 5 times. Quinn threw an interception. Quinn led his offense on only one real drive before the end, when they scored against the Vikings second stringers. Yes, the Vikings have a good defense that I get to watch about 8 times a year. And they looked worse than I’ve seen them in some time. The Browns running game was even better than the Packers running game yesterday. But it was Rodgers who put up enough points to win. So yeah I’m sorry your team has sucked since coming back. And the Packers did win mostly because of their D. But I’m simply saying that there were reasons to bring Anderson in at the end of the game, not to bench Quinn permanately.
A. Quinn was struggling to the point of where it might’ve been better for his confidence to get him out of there. This point was proven wrong by the touchdown.
B. Play to win. If you’re going to pull of a comeback it’s going to have to be a miracle. So yeah, give me the quarterback with the cannon
C. If you truly believe that you can’t win, and Quinn is truly, the starter why leave him in to get injured against a dirty team?
D. Definately still need to see more of Anderson in the new offense.
There. That was a really long post but I’ve said my peace about this topic.
by Donald Driver on Sep 15, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
We were not seriously comparing Rodgers and Quinn, we get the difference there.
The point of bringing up Rodgers in the first place was to illustrate that good QBs struggle against good defenses.
Benching Quinn mid-game to not bench him permanently would be a disastrous, horrible decision.
Well They both enjoy a good wait in the green room
But what’s your reasoning for saying it would be disastrous? It’s worked well as inspiration before. I realize that this is a moot point but I don’t really think that Rodgers struggled so much as the offense itself struggled; Cutler probably would’ve been a better example. I don’t get what the Steelers fan was saying. Did he literally just appear out of nowhere for no good reason to say “Browns fans are dumb?” Honestly even Bears fans don’t do that
by Donald Driver on Sep 15, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Steelers fans are worse than Bears fans. They think Big Ben is the best QB in the NFL. We had a 700 post argument about that a couple weeks ago.
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 15, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think I have the stomach to read that one
But yeah Ben’s pretty mediocre. Don’t forget though we have to deal with Minnesota fans too and they have become all the more insufferable since you know what. Although Baltimorians stole your whole team I guess, so I don’t know how they act about that but all that plus the in-state rivalry with the Bungles and the fact that the Browns often finish behind all three…I can almost understand the complete insanity about OSU-almost.
by Donald Driver on Sep 16, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Benching a QB after making the decision such a process in the first place would lost the entire team. They would think the coach is indecisive and doesn’t know what he is doing. Quinn may struggle, and while I understand the intent is to win every game, the more important intent is to win a SB. The best way to do that is to develop the QB that you think gives you the better shot in the future to get there. Winning a SB is more important than winning an individual game. Not saying Brady is the guy that can do it, but Mangini must think he has a better shot of getting them there.
I really had more of a problem with the way you were comparing the two than the fact that you were saying Rogers had a better day.
Quinn did get backed up by false start penalties—at least 5 of them—and at least 1 holding call. Edwards and RB James Davis both false started. I really don’t want to argue with you, but could you see how I thought you were ignoring those types of things when it came to Quinn and then making those excuses for Rogers?
Any QB’s success or failure always depends somewhat on other guys—you always play in the context of a team.
I didn't realize the Browns committed so many penalties
so my bad there. But the feeling I got watching the Browns game is that the guys around Quinn DID play reasonably well. I didn’t really feel that the rest of Green Bay’s offense didn’t play very well until the end. I think that for most of the season the exact opposite will happen (ergo, the Browns offense will be bad and Green Bay’s will be good). That being said, Green Bay’s defense did put them in better positions. So overall, I think we are in agreement that they might have played under similiar circumstances and Rodgers was the one who kept it together. As for Mr. Dorn, I think that we are at an impasse, because I feel the opposite. I feel like if a guy isn’t held accountable after a play like that fumble then that is what loses the team. Yes confidence in your guys is important but they absolutely cannot be allowed to get the impression that someone doesn’t have to play well. And if Brady ever leads the Browns to a Super Bowl victory, I’ll buy you a camel
by Donald Driver on Sep 18, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
They are only understood by themselves.
by steelerstyle on Sep 14, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, this logic is good. Since you root for a better team, that makes you a more knowledgeable fan. Do I have that right?
I ROOT FOR A WINNER THATS ALL THAT MATTERS
I never made that implication
My second favorite team is the Bills and they don’t win and I have to go cry about the game last night so farewell Dawgs by nature and I’m sure you’ll say good riddance
by Donald Driver on Sep 15, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
"trust us this time, we're gonna get it right"
I trusted Butch Davis. I sort of trusted Romeo. I’m out of trust.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
sigh.
aint that the truth
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont think that comment was neccessary
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I know how you feel, but I’m reminding myself that it is one game, and one half of that was good.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, you're right
there’s some positives from this one….
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Butch is doing pretty good at UNC these days. Just thought I’d say
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Many, many coaches have failed in NFL then gone on to success in college. Pete Carroll is the most obvious example, but there are many others.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Im just sayin
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I was just saying he was doing pretty good. It didnt really have any other meaning than that
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions
If you saw the Titan's game you'll know we aren't running anywhere!
Though we might win the division.
by steelerstyle on Sep 13, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Well I’m sure the Vikings are playing defense much different now.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Why? We are moving the ball well, and a TD would be a moral victory at this piont. They are dropping like 6 coverage guys really deep.
I’d sure like to see that moral victory, if only to make this no-touchdowns-since-the-Mesozoic-era BS cease.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
thought it was the paleolithic
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
The game-changer was definitely Quinn’s interception.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
that did seem to be the turning point
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions
NO it can't be
Anderson is the one who takes risks.
by steelerstyle on Sep 13, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
We’ll be looking up at three teams in the division.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Sep 13, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
They just changed to 38 sec. left and Cincy is kicking off.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Massaquoi sighting
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Kyle Orton passed to Brandon Stokley to the left for 87 yard gain
What the hell?
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Sep 13, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
It was an accident. Kyle Orton ment to throw an INT
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Thank you. I thought it was pretty funny too
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 14, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Crazy play — tipped by the defender and Stockley caught the deflection and took it to the end zone. Crazy.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MORAL VICTORY
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
I refuse to pretend we should be celebrating anything really. We lost. Lets not kid ourselves, victories get you to the playoffs.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
Indeed. I’d settle for vaguely respectable.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d hope that is everyones goal, up until you clinch out. Then as a fan I’d hope for a nice draft pick, and rivalry wins.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
Playoffs!?! Playoff?!? Dont talk about playoffs! Playoffs!?!
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, at least we won’t hear the no TDs business any more.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Why? I haven’t even checked really.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Sep 13, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Turner and Roddy White laid really big eggs for me. Combine that with a poor performance from my kicker/defense and I’ll be lucky to score 50 this week.
My odds are probably as good as Eli Manning outscoring Fitz and Warner.
can't believe Turner's output.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
by BringBackKosar on Sep 13, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
silver linings
D looked much better, even though they wore down
Esp. liked what Elam and Barton brought
ended that f&*% TD drought
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
We ended the drought twice.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 13, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Well spoken and well remembered!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Word. Some positives – I like the defense more than the offense, at least when both of them were trying. This game would have been more enjoyable if they didn’t get our hopes all the way up in the first half though.
I like Cribbs taking snaps too. Thankfully not all our opponents are Viking-caliber.
It was tough seeing them play so well defensively in the first half and then watch the Vikings come out and crush them in the second half.
Part of me would have almost rather seen a blowout from the start, especially after the USC game last night.
Both this game and a different one within 24 hours cause me pain
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, there’s that sense of missed opportunity, but I’m much happier that we had that good half myself. Makes it easier to keep hoping.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
QB ratings
Anyone knoe the quarterback ratings???
quinn wasn't that bad!
i’m reading a bunch of comments here saying that quinn sucks and DA needs to get in. seriously, people? it’s one game against a really good defense! quinn just found out like 5 days ago that he was named the starter. it’s going to take a bit of time for him to completely gel with the 1st team offense. i’d rather have quinn throw a bunch of 8-yard passes instead of just throwing it up for grabs like DA does half the time. that 34 yard pass to braylon should’ve been a TD, so you can’t say that he doesn’t have any arm strength. his arms are like freaking tree trunks!
how many time did quinn avoid pressure? DA can’t do that at all… he can’t run to save his life! that int was bad, i realize that, but braylon didn’t run the right route, i believe. the fumble was just a ball control issue, and he normally doesn’t have any problem with that.
his drive at the end of the game was excellent, and we’ll be seeing more of that in denver next week. remember how well he played against them? he’ll throw 2 TDs next week if the offense shows up… and if the defense can save a lead!
remember, guys. it’s one game. it wasn’t THAT bad of a start for quinn. if he’s thrown 8 TDs and 14 INTs at the end of the season, then you guys can start complaining. but DA had countless opportunities to win the job this year and to retain the starting job last year.
bottom line— give the kid a chance. we didn’t spend a 1st round pick on him for nothing.
Ummm...
I guess you could say he “wasn’t that bad” if you don’t want pocket presence, arm strength, solid decision making etc. etc.
I agree that this was just one game.
A pathetic game at that.
But he was terrible today.
We’ll see what he can do next week – and not that it will matter…
This team looked absolutely awful today.
God help us.
thank you
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. The couple of big mistakes were heart-breaking, but I’m definitely for giving him the space to grow. One way or the other, we need to know if he’s the answer or not!
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 13, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
to pruitt
the team looked solid 1st half. 2nd half, they fell apart.
pocket presence? solid decision making? DA has none of those. how many times as he thrown into double coverage and handed the team a pick? brady definitely has pocket presence, and he made a few bad decisions.
all i’m saying is that this was a good minnesota team we faced. you can’t say he sucks after one game.
And please use the reply button
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Ummm (part 2)
Hey – I am not a part of a great QB debate. I’ve seen enough of DA to know that he has already had his 6 good NFL games.
Similarly, I have yet to see anything from Quinn to make me believe that he’s got a great NFL future.
Is it his fault?
Not entirely, because this Browns team looked awful (or “pathetic” today).
And please – I have been watching football since I was 5 – that’s 40 years of the NFL. Don’t tell me that a team playing a good half means anything at all. The game is 4 quarters long. If strong first halfs meant a thing, than the Bills would have 3 super bowls.
This team wore down brutally. So tell me, what is there to be impressed about when a running back can hurl defenders to the ground?
Am I to take comfort from the fact that in the 2nd quarter, he couldn’t fling defensive backs to the ground like rag dolls?
Please – this was a horrible performance. Period.
I hope that Quinn gets better.
I don’t think he will.
We’ll chat next Sunday.
watching for 40 years? wow, i give you props for rooting for the browns that long, haha.
i’m, of course, aware that a game is 4 quarters long. did i say that playing a good first half means anything? no. i was just pointing out that they had a strong 1st half, that’s all. trying to think of some positives from this game. i didn’t say it meant anything… other than the fact that they had a solid first half.
and hey, at least we ended that wonderful streak with no offensive touchdowns. that drive was really good.
also, they need to eliminate the stupid offsides/false start penalties. screwed them over on a lot of drives.
i’m not justifying what happened in the 2nd half. in fact, the only player i was talking about was brady in my first post. i agree— the “tackling” of peterson was just inexcusable on that td run. however, the d-line did a bit of a better job getting some pressure on the qb for once. 4 sacks… how many did they get last year? 8? lol.
i’m not saying that quinn’s going to be the next drew brees, but i think he will do way better next week. i think, with time, he will develop into a good nfl quarterback. our receivers just need to step up and make some plays. and dabboll (sp?) needs to open up the playbook more for quinn. that 34-yard pass to braylon was a bit underthrown, but it should have been a td. so close, yet so far…
Playing a good half means a lot, particularly to the Browns.
It means we can play with the good teams in the NFL. It means we aren’t as hopeless as we were in 2005, for example, or for 80% of the new Browns’ existence.
It means we aren’t a talentless team that needs to be rebuilt over the course of 3-5 more years of being a hopeless, talentless team.
It means our coaches know kinda how to coach—at least kinda how to coach defense—and that they aren’t as hopelessly inept as last year.
Exactly. A good half is a vast improvement over what we managed much of last year. There is progress in sight. When some things work, those things can be built on and there’s a reasonable expectation that incremental improvement is possible—- as opposed to looking at the whole sorry mess, throwing up your hands and throwing in the towel like Romeo did at the end of last year.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 14, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
haha man you guys really like to spin when the browns screw up
Playing a good half doesn’t mean jack other than the browns can’t play like an NFL team for an entire game. The only thing it means is that teams can easily make adjustments to the browns gameplan offensively and defensively, while the browns can’t adjust to save their lives. Talent, coaching, and hope doesn’t disintegrate after 2 quarters.
The browns keeping the vikings in check for half a game realistically means one of two things; the browns having a decent defense was a departure from the norm or the vikings not being able to get something started was a departure from the norm. I guess the only way we’ll be able to find that out is to wait until next week and see if the browns play like an NFL team for 30 minutes and then get stomped the second half, which I’m sure would make the apologists on this board very happy.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Sep 14, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I love how everytime someone finds positives in a sea of negativity, they are automatically an apologist.
seriously…this is a browns board, after all. isn’t this one of the only places where it’s ok (encouraged?) to say, “i know we sucked…but at least the uniforms all matched…”?
i would ask Rocland what his analysis would be? the browns were terrible in this game, ergo the browns are irretrievably terrible? they did play well enough for a full half to hold a lead against the vikings…how is that not a positive thing for us to hold out hope for in the future?
your negativity is noted…and not really all that welcome.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 14, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. Every NFL team has good games and bad games, good halves and bad halves, all year long. You are talking like we’re going to be the worst team in the league by saying “the Browns can’t play like an NFL team for an entire game.” If the Browns aren’t an NFL team, then what are the Lions, Bucs, Rams, Bengals, Raiders, Chiefs, and the other teams just as bad or worse than the Browns? Our coaching staff has been in place for one game and you’re already saying they can’t make adjustments? Give me a break.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 14, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
The Browns got owned by the the best RB in the NFL in the end. He will do that to everyone. I am pleased with the defensive effort, our main concerns should be on offense.
i agree with this 100%. i thought the defense acquitted itself rather well…while the offense, from playcalling to execution, was horrible.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 14, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
There are only two offensive positives I could come up with:
-Jamal Lewis looked much better than he did at all during the preseason, and much like he could still be a viable RB.
-Joe Thomas dominated Jared Allen.
both of these are major positives (even if we already expect the world of joe t., it’s nice to see he can deliver), you are right. the fact that jamal looked a sprightly and, quite frankly, quick as he did was a major surprise.
i would add that alex mack didn’t seem completely overmatched…but i’m not so sure that’s a positive as much as it’s a “whew, this guy isn’t a stiff”.
unfortunately, the negatives dramatically outweighed these positives.
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 14, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. On one of the plays I reviewed in the 1st quarter, Mack drove “315lber” Pat Williams back 3-4 yards by himself on a running play before getting his legs caught up in the trash.
The kid’s got some power.
However, on another play, he kept waiting for DT Kevin Williams and a blitzing LB to stunt, and ended up letting Williams run by him to pressure Quinn.
He isn’t comfortable yet, but he’ll get there.
And Steinbach looked huge
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 14, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Talent, coaching, and hope doesn’t disintegrate after 2 quarters.
Exactly what I was saying. We have every reason to hope that the flashes of a dominant D we saw in the first half can turn in to whole-game and whole-season performances. I am not hoping they do something they haven’t ever done, I am hoping they can be more consistent and keep their performances up over the course of a game/season.
I didn’t spin our lack of good offensive gameplanning, playcalling, play design, awareness, and execution in to anything. Our offense was not good in any way.
If you think we suck so bad we have no reason for hope, quit watching and quit coming here.
Go root for Buffalo.
Sure, ultimately an L is an L. The idea that playing a good half is meaningless is silly, though. To show that you can best a high caliber team for 30 minutes is a validation of the team’s potential. Do they need to do that for 4 quarters to count it? Of course, but a good half is worth noting from where this team is coming from, and points down the road to three quarters and finally four and that W.
As you said, we’ll see how the team plays next week, and the week after that.
As for this apologist business, get serious. I can’t get the stench of the third quarter of this game out of my nose two days later, and if the Browns play many more like it, they’ll be deservedly considered just as bad as Peter King thinks they are.
Not that I won’t be watching the whole time, mind you….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 15, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
That second half made me drink more beer than I wanted to drink…
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/
Dawg Scooper: An Unofficial Cleveland Browns News Source
Sad thing is, I watched a lot of the Jets-Texans game…
You can imagine the rest of what I’m going to say, but Sanchez just looked like he KNEW what was going on.
I HATE THIS TEAM THAT I LOVE
I also watched the Jets-Texans game and I will agree with you, Sanchez did look good. But we are talking about two completely different defenses here. Houston’s defense is hardly something to brag about, if it was, the Texans would have been more than a .500 team last year with their explosive offense. Minnesota’s defense, especially their pass rush, is incredible. I would say that if Quinn’s and Sanchez’s roles were switched today, their stats would have been way different.
Another thing, don’t you think it’s possible that Quinn did know what was going on? With Allen and the Williams “brothers” on the line, it’s likely that the Browns gameplanned around getting the ball out of Quinn’s hands before those three could get to him. If that’s the case, then I would say that Quinn did know what was going on.
I won’t even try to defend the int or the fumble though, but maybe that’s the reason for the conservative play calling.
i think braylon may have ran the wrong route on the int, but who knows.
the fumble… well, that just sucked. especially because he escaped that sack so well.
It wasn’t necessarily the wrong route. Brady saw him make a move to the outside, and threw a jump ball thinking Braylon would see it go up and compete for it. Braylon didn’t see it, and redirected his route inside.
Brady felt pressure and had to get rid of it, but he probably should have thrown a less catchable ball (as in “unintentionally” thrown it away).
The fumble, on the other hand…you just have to hang on to the ball.
On the replay it looked to me like he was looking right from the snap, possibly to keep the safety away from Braylon. He pretty much turned left and fired, (correctly) expecting Braylon to be one on one, and thus sticking with the route. The way Braylon adjusted his route, though, made him pretty wide open I think. I don’t know what the answer is, but that’s the way I saw it. And it was the turning point in the game, for sure.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Jamal Lewis looked pretty good. My question is, what was with all of the false starts? I wonder if it was because of a new QB and the lack of prep time due to Mangini playing games.
You already found something to blame on Mangini’s QB indecision? That didn’t take long.
Quinn was doing a lot of hard counts, which did draw a couple defensive off-sides but that might have also created the falst starts.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve been questioning that from the beginning. But no, I don’t think they would have won even if Quinn didn’t receive the least amount of preseason QB starts of any starting QB in 2009.
What did you think of the Buckeyes?
Ugh, I don’t want to talk about that. The defense was great — if you would have told me that we would only give up 18 points then I would have been thrilled. Our offense was the problem; Pryor needed to have a great game and he was too inconsistant. He missed open throws and didn’t make enough plays running the football. We should have won that game.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Sigh. We’re not drafting a QB next year — can we not do this after every bad performance by Quinn.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe if we need a backup
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, but i think he meant draft in order to start him.
seriously, guys. don’t knock quinn on his first start this season against a super bowl caliber defense. we’re lucky they got 20 points against them. wait until the end of the season to start calling for DA or a new qb.
I know. I was just implying that I dont want to draft a guy to be a starter
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Really REALLY dumb.
Daboll already scared me
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
As I mentioned, I didn’t mind it on second down but not on third down. On third down, you do a quick handoff to Vickers or Lewis to pound the ball in. You don’t run a play that could lose 4 yards.
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 13, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d like to see a pass or two out of the wildcat. Cribbs passed for over 7000 yards in college, so we know he has the ability.
2009 Prediction: Att - Yds - TD
Jerome Harrison 95 - 532 - 8
I watched the GT punter throw a TD pass. Cribbs can hit someone that open.
Run the same formation, have that RB block to the outside of the RT, roll Cribbs out to the right and send a TE on a crossing route or something horizontal to the right with Cribbs. If the TE is wide open; throw. If the TE is covered, try to get the corner.
The regular read option was not going to work there.
I liked Roger’s celebration for his sack
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 13, 2009 9:43 PM EDT reply actions
One bad game, and everyone jumps ship. Or all these DA homers were too scared to come out and discuss everything beforehand.
People I am disappointed in:
-Brian Daboll
-Brian Daboll
-Womack
-St. Clair
-Quinn
-Furrey
-Braylon
Of those, people I think will be able to rebound:
-St. Clair
-Quinn
-Furrey
-Braylon
Womack was getting abused, we REALLY need Rex Hadnot as scary as that sounds.
If Daboll can’t rebound, then we are in trouble.
Kevin Williams just straight ran by him on one play. Billick thought it was a stunt by the DL, but on the replay, he just ran right around Womack. Embarrassing.
Their LDE was also around the quarterback far too often.
i noticed that, too…the billick call of a stunt that was nothing even remotely close to a stunt. pork chop just got beat like he stole something.
that said, i thought billick was pretty good in the booth. smart, well-spoken. how’s a guy like that not even get interviews for another job?
I reserve the right to complain about Gimenez at 1B and Carroll in the OF, no matter the facts. - FredOx
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 14, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you really expect much from Daboll though?
I wish we would have got Shottenheimer for OC
" Of course Steroids should be allowed! I wanna see 700 foot home runs and 90 yard field goals! I litterally want to see someone's d**k get shoved in the dirt!"
by BradyQuinnisBeast on Sep 14, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m a browns fan first and foremost,but i think they made the wrong decision on the starting qb. it makes too easy for defenses to load the box with eight, this is two fold with our current qb. 1) it helps to eliminate the run and 2) with the thrower we have right now, those 8 are right in position to make the tackle as soon as our guy gets the ball, because the ball is rarely out over 10 yards, this is simple, very obvious. at least with da the defense has to think about the long ball. i know people will say he can’t throw the short and intermediate routes, but his average pass is 7 yards, you don’t get that by throwing only long balls.
i know let the kid have a chance, ok i will, but the truth is we don’t really have a number one on this team, hence the max hall talk from me.
hope i am wrong!
GO BROWNS!!!
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.
Related FanPosts on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
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
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
