Are the Browns really this bad?
by drjeo on Sep 21, 2009 1:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
While I'm not particularly surprised at the results of the first two games (I thought they might be 1-1 at best), I am pretty surprised at how bad the team has looked thus far. There have been some encouraging signs from the defense, but the offense is WAY worse than I anticipated. I thought they might well be 2-6 or 3-5 over the first 8 games, but now Peter King's 2-14 prediction isn't looking quite as pessimistic as we initially thought. I'm pretty patient, since I didn't have high expectations for the season by any means, but it would be nice to see some signs of progress. They will almost certainly get drilled by Baltimore next week (could be very ugly), so when do you think they will win their first game? I looked at the next 6 games on the schedule and don't see anybody that looks beatable at this point, with Buffalo perhaps being the best bet. Are they really as bad as they've looked thus far?
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
104 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yep. They are what they appear to be.
Biggest problem is that that they can not run the ball……. at all. Rushing 21 times for 54 yards is beyond pathetic and won’t win any ball games. Quinn has just 4-5 starts and can not be expected to carry this team with his passing.
Jamal Lewis, Jerome Harrison and most of the offensive line do not appear to be NFL caliber players. We have a rookie starting center who can’t seem to get the ball 3 ft off the ground to the QB to boot.
This woeful “effort” made me turn off the TV to prevent a premature heart attack or the cats being thrown through the front window. Yes, the Browns are this bad.
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
I stuck with Sunday to the bitter end, but I’m seriously debating whether I can handle watching next week. It has all the makings of a complete bloodbath.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 21, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Harrison averages about 10 yards per touch in the NFL. I think he’s unquestionably NFL caliber.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
allow me to clarify....
These all not “starting” caliber NFL players. Harrison may have a great per touch average but he would likely spend more time on the injury report than the field.
So I told her," I'll be nicer if you try to be smarter!'..That was a mistake.
Be Patient!!!
I’m not trying to make excuses for Quinn, but he’s only had three weeks to work entirely with the first team. I really believe that before game number 6, after he’s had a few more weeks under center, he’ll be putting up better numbers, say close to 240 with a TD per game.
Juannie is right, without a run game, our passing game can’t be relied upon to carry us there, but hopefully, with Quinn’s development, the passing game will open up that run game. Give it time. All Cleveland fans deserve for their teams to win and win now, but being negative about it isn’t changing a thing. We need to do what we can to stay positive.
How about this one: Earlier this year, David Ortiz was in a pretty bad slump. Yet after every strikeout, flyout, groundout, etc., the Red Sox fans were cheering. You didn’t hear boos from the crowd. They needed to give him time and support, and that’s what they did. He hasn’t had a great year, but he got out of the slump.
Give the Browns some time and support!!!!
I think the final game of the season Quinn might have a good game. Be Patient!!!
"And our second unit can probably start in most NBA cities." -Maurice Lucas
In the next 6 games there will probably be at least one surprise win. That’s just the NFL. There will probably be a surprise loss also (please, please let it not be Detroit). It is hard to be positive and see any good after a game like Sunday’s. It was so similar to what we were seeing at the end of last year as to be indistinguishable.
Let’s look at the different aspects of the game:
Offense
Run Game – Lewis is not the man he once was and even that has never been that great. He cannot be a featured back and our backups are huge downgrades. This was an Achilles heel that needed to be addressed in the off-season and it wasn’t. Now what was feared has become reality.
Pass Game – Quinn is not a deep threat and the defenses are cheating up. This is also hurting the running game. You know I’m not a great Quinn fan because of this and I’d rather be seeing Anderson throwing long, tight-spiral, interceptions than what I’m seeing right now. Even a deep, incomplete pass to a receiver that has beat his man would keep the defenses more honest and open up the mid-field for the short pass and more successful running. I know folks are saying that the lack of a running game is stifling the pass but I think it is the other way around. Quinn has 2 more games to show us something—I’m mean ANYTHING at all and then I’m going to start calling for him to be benched. I mean think about it… if this were Anderson in, people would be screaming for him to be benched at this point.
Play Calling – The first game seemed better. The Tennessee pre-season game was best. What happened in Denver? Very unimaginative and uninspired play calling.
Receivers – I wasn’t on this board during the draft. I always questioned the pick up of two wide receivers in the 2nd round. It made no sense when it wasn’t our primary need. Only thing I can say is that maybe they were going to trade Edwards. Spring forward to now and they aren’t even being used. At least Maualuga is starting for Cincy and he doesn’t look half bad. Oh, and are we really going to hang all our hopes on an un-drafted guy who has shown a spark on special teams? Especially when we used 2 fairly high draft picks on wide receivers?
Defense
Pass Rush – I think we were applying good pressure throughout the game. The most consistent thing about Sunday. I can’t recall ever seeing a quarter back dump the ball as much as I saw Orton do it Sunday and I think that was a direct result of defenders in his face.
Run Defense – I’d agree that this looks better than last year but the Browns are slow and quite vulnerable to outside running plays—especially in the second half of the game.
Pass Defense – Is there some kind of new defensive scheme being tried that creates huge open spaces on the field? I can’t believe how open guys are getting in the middle/deep part of the field. Maybe this is why the run defense is so stingy; we are not covering the pass.
Scheme – The defense seemed different in one way this past Sunday, there were a lot of plays in which they just sort of meandered around before the snap and then stood in some almost random setup. They would sort of look at each other as if to say “who is covering that guy?” It just looked disorganized on many plays.
Well, this is too long already. It is obvious that there is not much to take-away from this game and that it is best forgotten. Right now, going to Baltimore just seems futile. I’ll still be watching and cheering when I can but I can’t shake this feeling of foreboding…
Brownsyup
Oh, and are we really going to hang all our hopes on an un-drafted guy who has shown a spark on special teams?
It’s too soon to call the Cribbs experiment a failure, but I certainly haven’t been impressed by what I’ve seen thus far. At this point, you can’t really call him an NFL receiver.
He’s not a receiver. I like having him on the offensive side of the ball sometimes, but the fact that he is such a great kick returner, does not mean he is electric anytime he touches the ball. I’d rather see him in there for some occasional gimmick plays, but then it would be obvious when we are running them.
I really would like to see Massaquoi in the game more instead of rotting on the bench.
There will probably be a surprise loss also
with the current state of this team, i’d venture to say there is no such thing as a surprise loss in 2009.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 21, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I always questioned the pick up of two wide receivers in the 2nd round. It made no sense when it wasn’t our primary need
Without Robiskie and Massaquoi we would be going into games with Braylon “Dropped It” Edwards, Josh “Overworked” Cribbs and Mike Furrey. I don’t mind drafting two. I think they’ll both come good, maybe not this season. But hopefully next season this is not an area we need to improve.
there was too much else that we needed to improve, and improve fast, to draft to wr’s in round 2.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 23, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
And by that I mean, if both Robiskie and Massaquoi looked like successful rookie WRs at this point, no one would have been complaining.
We needed WRs, and bigtime. Take the Winslow trade into account, too. Feel free to critique the two WRs we did actually take (as they haven’t done much but show us some flashes at this point) or to critique taking those WRs over other players that you thought were better, but I don’t think taking two WR in and of itself was a huge deal.
Odds were that we weren’t going to fix it all in one draft anyway.
well, furrey and cribbs are the ones getting the wr reps. and patten was available. and drew bennett was available. and matt jones was available. and hank baskett has become available…
my point is that there are other ways to address the wr position (any position) than taking 2 of them inside of, what, 14 picks on the first day of the draft? one is fine…two is too many. rare is the first year (or second year, frankly) receiver who has a positive impact.
but we definitely weren’t going to fix it all in one draft…that’s for sure.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 23, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
well, each one of those guys has been more productive at the pro level than momass and robo combined (obviously). as i say, the point is simply that there are plenty of ways to address 5th wide receiver…and it doesn’t have to be with a 2nd round pick, especially when a different second round pick was already used on the 4th wr.
maybe they both turn out to be great, but the early returns are uninspiring.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 24, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Ignoring MoMass and Robiskie in this discussion, you draft a guy in the 2nd round because you believe they have the potential to be better than those 4 craptastic receivers you just listed.
to me, it’s more of a marginal benefit analysis…sure the guys i listed are craptastic (as you said, there’s a reason they’re available), but is replacing one of them as the 4th receiver with a rookie a greater benefit to the team than having a rookie LB/OL getting backup-level reps?
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 24, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you sure Matt Jones isn’t somewhere in prison for possessing massive amounts of cocaine?
Who else did you want in the draft? I’m still not buying that taking 2 WR was bad in principle. There were individual players available I probably wanted more, but I also wanted Rashad Jennings, who went undrafted.
at robo’s spot i would have preferred: eben britton, ron brace, darius butler, everette brown, clint sintim. for momass, i would rather have had: lesean mccoy, william moore, fili moala, sen’derrick marks, william beatty.
again, my ultimate point is that there was too much else to address to be happy taking 2 wr’s in 14 picks, in the second round. that’s obviously just my opinion, and one i’ve been consistent with since the draft, but i can’t imagine we were so set at, for example, right side of the OL, DL, LB, as to ignore many solid candidates at those positions.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 24, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
When draft day came around we didn’t really worry about ROL, because we thought Hadnot and Tucker would be at least alright.
I really believe the draft was handled, ASSUMING, that everyone else did their job. I’m not sure we really really really needed a DL and a LB over WRs. In other words, I’m not sure we’re that bad in those positions.
The reason you see our defense getting pounded now is because our offense can’t pound anyone else. We can’t say today that the defense is worthless when we haven’t seen what it can do when we’re leading the ball game.
This sounds like you think drafts are based mostly on need. Considering the dire state of the roster, shouldn’t they just pick the highest player on the board, regardless of position? If so, there’s nothing odd at all about picking two WRs.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
This was really my point.
Either best player available, or a tiered system where players are placed on “tiers” based on their overall talent, and then the player on the highest tier who fits a need is drafted. The tiered system is much easier in the NBA, though.
if its all about picking based on the team’s teir then it was absolutely nothing wrong with Oakland taking DHB. He was next on their list after all right?
by The Licensed Pessimist on Sep 24, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem was that they put him on such a high tier.
You don’t have to have the top player at every position on the first tier. For example, I would have put:
Aaron Curry
Jason Smith
Mark Sanchez
Eugene Monroe
B.J. Raji
and Michael Crabtree
on that first tier, while maybe being able to split that in to two tiers.
Oakland probably had DHB at the top of their draft board regardless of how they rank players.
And the browns put Robiske and MoMass on such a high teir. And you’re dead wrong about not drafting out of need. Detroit, KC, Seattle, NY all drafted out of need, they didn’t draft simply the best player on the board. Draft boards usually are a combination of the two, the prospect that fills their biggest need and is within their respective slot is the they most likely want to draft. You can’t complain about Oakland drafting DHB out of slot when he was obviously the top of their board and then not be critical of the Browns drafting out of need and out of slot. Its pure hypocrisy.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Sep 25, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
And you’re dead wrong about not drafting out of need. Detroit, KC, Seattle, NY all drafted out of need, they didn’t draft simply the best player on the board.
unless you have A LOT more information than everyone else here…you have no way of knowing that. zero.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 25, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
You are completely not even reading what I am writing.
First, I have no idea what system we use to rank our players. Neither do you.
Yes, by putting Robo and MoMass as high as they did, it looks as though we made a mistake (but draft classes, and especially WRs need more than 2 games by which to be judged). This does not have anything to do with the fact that both are WR, it has nothing to do with where we picked them in the draft, it has to do with the fact that neither is contributing right now. They at least clearly underestimated the amount of time it would take for both guys to be ready to play.
Yes, need should be a part of the equation, as should position value, and the consensus value of the player. I didn’t ever say otherwise. In fact, the tier system inherently deals with need, and can deal with position value and consensus value.
The “consensus value of the player” part is where Oakland really messed up. Instead of trading down (and admittedly probably not getting full trade-down value) and picking up another pick or two, they just took DHB. No one else would have taken him that high. It would have been like us just staying at #5 and taking Mack—really stupid.
Robiskie and Massaquoi were at least closer to the range where multiple teams would have been considering them.
i really don’t think that strictly drafting the highest player on your board is doable. nor do i think it’s advisable (which may be why i’m not a football executive, but i digress).
to me, there has to be SOME consideration of need…if you have larry fitzgerald, anquan boldin and steve breaston, you can’t take brian robiskie (just a random example, of course), even if he’s higher on your board than beanie wells.
now, there’s clearly no position in cleveland that replicates the ari wr’s as far as depth, so it’s not as clear cut for the browns, of course. similarly, though, there’s no position at which we’re so deep that we can afford to double up on a single position in the first 20 picks of the second round. especially a position like receiver, where the impact of that pick isn’t realistically felt for at least 2 years.
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 24, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying except that taking need into consideration should have prevented us from doubling up, and I think it is simply a matter of differing preferences.
If Detroit, for example, would have taken two OL, or even two OT, I don’t think that would have been a bad thing for them.
Taking WRs also may have been strategic on Kokiman’s part, if they realized they would need those two years to put together the roster they wanted, change the culture, etc.
Taking WRs also may have been strategic on Kokiman’s part, if they realized they would need those two years to put together the roster they wanted, change the culture, etc.
This, I think, is the most likely explanation for taking two receivers in the second round. Get them now, so they’ll be ready when they’re needed.
by e.c. matter on Sep 24, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem comes in with the gap of talent and potential with the picks they took. The difference in talent between the WR’s we took and the ones taken in the 4th was minimal at best. Just like with RB’s, WR’s can be found later down the draft just and be effective just as easily. Other positions on the other hand can’t be filled that easily. It would have been much easier to find another 4th and 5th WR in the later rounds than another Muauluga or Sean Smith.
You try to convince yourself its about differing preferences. But its really about a team conducting good and effective drafts and a team having terrible drafts. That’s the difference between the browns and successful teams and that why everyone is now so butthurt about this terrible start to the season.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Sep 25, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
The difference in talent between the WR’s we took and the ones taken in the 4th was minimal at best.
This is almost exactly my position, except I think we need WAAAYYYYY more time to evaluate both guys. And I think that other teams would have seriously considered drafting both players near where we did.
WR’s can be found later down the draft just and be effective just as easily. Other positions on the other hand can’t be filled that easily.
Completely disagree. And when you bring up specific players like Maualuga and Smith, you are not talking about positions, you are talking about individual players.
You try to convince yourself its about differing preferences.
Between myself and NotJoey, neither of whom actually make picks for an NFL franchise, based purely in abstract, position-only terms. In an actual draft (such as the one in which we took Robo and MoMass) positions can never be fully separated from individual talents.
Johny Knox is looking pretty good for a late round pick though
by TheRealSlimShady on Sep 25, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree not that WR can be found later in the draft (Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson, Anquan Boldin, etc.) but that other positions that we need couldn’t be found later.
Aside from CB and possibly LT, just about every position can be found later in the draft.
Right, but he isn’t a star.
If you look around the league, there are only a few CBs who are star-quality players who have been drafted outside of the 1st/early 2nd round.
Asante Samuel is maybe the biggest exception, if you consider him to be a star.
Sorry I was thinking of the fat Shaun Smith.
by TheRealSlimShady on Sep 25, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Some people drooled over the fact that he is a 6’4" corner, but I doubt he is fluid enough to stay there in the NFL. Only time will tell.
I was thinking of fat Brady-Quinn punching Sean Smith. But I still dont think the one for the Dolphins will be a good corner. He might make a pretty good safety though.
And have you heard of that Kam Chancellor? Scouts like his tools, but he is a liability in pass coverage. I wouldnt touch him with a 7th rounder
by TheRealSlimShady on Sep 25, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree on Britton, Brown, Sintim.
Agree on Butler, Brace, McCoy, Moala, and Marks for MoMass’ spot.
I think those were all strong candidates, but Kokiman must have felt that Robiskie and Massaqoi were better individual players or made some big mistakes in evaluating the players they already had at those positions.
Either way, it doesn’t look good to not even have your 2nd round pick active on game day. Geez.
maybe i’m just frustrated about the amazing lack of reps that all 3 of our second rounders have combined to see (including robiskie in jean shorts for denver)…but the wr issue has ground on me since the draft.
go james davis!!
by DontCallMeJoey on Sep 24, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Really, that’s the issue; your 2nd rounders should at least be active on Sunday during their first year.
Our 2TE sets haven’t been working, and we aren’t gaining much by having 2RB on the field (no running game, not a whole lot of pass blocking or receiving out of the backfield), so why not take one of those guys out of the game and play one of our draftees?
I can at least understand with Veikune because he is making a transition to a different position and our defense has been adequate for 5-6/8 quarters so far.
Agree again. The Browns are nowhere close to being a power running team (or, I suppose, any other kind of running team.) They need to maximize their opportunities by getting an extra receiver on the field as often as possible.
I don’t understand why we don’t spread the field and use more zone blocking. I mean, ZBing would look horrible with Womack and St. Clair, but if Mangini knew he wanted to rebuild our line in one offseason, the ZB system would seem to be the easiest thing to implement in such a short time because of the availability of that type of lineman and back.
Just think; no more Jamal Lewis stutter-steps, and using our best two OL’s strengths!
And we could just pick up a average Joe running back like Selvin Young and he very well could exceed.
by TheRealSlimShady on Sep 25, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
taking 2 WR’s wasn’t the bad choice. It was the location they were taken which makes it a terrible, absolutely terrible choice. And the fact that they were taken back to back.
by The Licensed Pessimist on Sep 24, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like the main point of the draft and the off-season in general is to address your needs. This team has a lot of needs but at the time of the draft, I wouldn’t have put WR at the top of the list. If I had I might have used a higher pick to get a potential huge play maker. That’s why you want high draft picks in the first place. In all honesty, if I had thought a receiver was the top need I would have picked Crabtree but we all know how that has turned out for SF.
I don’t think you can afford a multi-year rebuilding plan in the NFL. You need to do things that make your team competitive in the best way possible right now. I don’t think that is what happened in the most recent draft.
Brownsyup
Actually, the unquestionable answer is no, no they are not. They’ve lost by 21 and 14. I doubt you’ll find very many, if any, teams that have finished the year with an average deficit of 17.5. For example, last year the Lions average deficit was 7 points a game.
Thus, no, they are not this bad. They are a bad football team. They are not this bad.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Ah, I had totally wrong stats for point for and against. Maybe we are this bad…
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
That post made my day
" 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 21, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions
We aren’t an 0-16 team. I think we beat Detroit, Oakland and Jacksonville. But, I think that means we go into week 15 with a 1-13 record.
Well...
You guys played two defensive units that have looked quite good so far, so don’t beat the offense up that badly just yet.
"A player who conjugates a verb in the first person singular cannot be part of the squad, he has to conjugate the verb in the first person plural. We. We want to conquer. We are going to conquer. Using the word 'I' when you're in a group makes things complicated." ~ Wanderley Luxemburgo, 1999
There is no inherent problem with Quinn checking down so much, but if he is a ball control quarterback as he appears to be then the Browns should consider passing more with him. Trying to establish the run has everything to do with forcing the opponent into bringing a safety down, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t take advantage of the vertical game.
I’d like to see the Browns go no-huddle and pass more often. Quinn has shown that he will take care of the ball. Might as well take advantage of his ability to check down.
Seriously, if we are not going to take shots downfield, why not scrap the run game and spread the field out. We’d have a better chance of making the short passing game succeed.
Someone before called Daboll the equivalent of Tucker. I agree with this, because my main criticism of Tucker was having a system and expecting the players to adapt to what the “perfect form” of this system would look like, instead of modifying the system to highlight the specific strengths of the actual players you have (Wimbley and Williams are examples).
I think the same can be said of Daboll’s offense thus far. I understand, “the open guy is where the ball should go”, but I already feel like the system is the system, and it’s not tailored any at all to our specific players (and I’m not just talking about the QB here).
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Yes, thank you. Do you also think we are having our WRs run too many vertical routes (that aren’t usually open or Quinn isn’t good at throwing to, etc.) and that our TEs and backs aren’t the personnel we always want running shorter routes? In short, shouldn’t we be spreading the field and using more WRs?
That’s what I want. I would like to see Massaquoi on the field a lot more. The running game is non-existent….time to acknowledge that fact and move on.
Agree. I was happy to see the team running screens during the pre-season, because I regard the screen pass as an extension of the running game. During the two regular season games, though, they seem to have abandoned the play virtually entirely. Screens also serve to slow down the pass rush, which is another area needing help. Even quick outs or wide receiver screens could be effective. Whatever we do, I hope it will involve forgetting the underneath throw on 3rd-and-long. I’m gonna scream if I see one more 2 yard completion on 3rd-and-7. Actually, I already have. Throw the ball past the marker, for cripes sake! Same thing applies in the red zone. Wouldn’t you think you might want to actually try throwing the ball into the end zone once or twice?
I’d love to know why those screens seem to have completely disappeared from the game plan. Strange.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 22, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
They haven’t. We’ve tried to run some both against Denver and Minnesota, but we’ve gotten penalties, had the other team sniff them out, or otherwise been unsuccessful.
You’re probably right. Maybe it’s just their semi-effectiveness that’s disappeared.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Sep 23, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that we dont have a leader on the team. I mean a guy like Ray Lewis, Brian Dawkins, Peyton Manning, or Brett Favre that makes the team play harder. Do you all think Eric Berry could be that guy?
" 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 21, 2009 10:07 PM EDT reply actions
apparently Andre Davis has been that guy in Denver. (shudders)
.. I hate to say it, I really don’t want to say it, but offensively DA was that guy…
Both of those sentences are wrong. DA isn’t a leader and neither is Davis. Dawkins is denver’s leader
" 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 22, 2009 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions
1. this is professional football; you need talent before you need leadership; a lot of us are leaders at home, or work, etc., but we couldn’t get a spot on an NFL roster because we can’t play football.
2. saying for argument’s sake that leadership IS a big deal, how do we know who is a leader in the locker room or practice, or on the field? there might be a guy already who fills that role, but we’re not in the huddle to know it.
The team is simply not making plays, and it appears the weight lies mainly on the offense, and as such, on BQ. I happen to agree with Buckeye Brad on this overall theory, that leadership and “playing with heart” is an easy idea to wish for when the talent level isn’t there. but the bottom line is that we might have a leader, it may be BQ, but the team isn’t executing.
We*/the Browns are this bad. They’ve played the games and they were what they were. We let the Broncos dominate the 4th quarter, we have done a horrible job of execution, decision-making, play-calling, and scheming. We have been terrible on offense.
That doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t get better. We still have a lot more talent than we’ve shown. We are an 0-2 team right now, period. We can do better, though.
*I use “us” when its positive, so I will now, too. But saying “we” didn’t tackle or “we” haven’t been able to move the ball makes it sound like I have been playing, which is wildly untrue. That said, I don’t want to lump my fanhood in with the team when there is room for optimism and then withdraw that when the times are bad, so I’ll stick with the “us”.
well, I certainly realize that they have been this bad, and have gotten the results that their play deserves. My question was more oriented toward whether the team has played below their ability level, and we might reasonably expect improvement. If they continue playing (and coaching) at this level, it’s hard to imagine beating anyone, with the possible exception of Detroit. For instance, a number of posters guessed that the Browns would win 2 or 3 games in our own conference this year: 1 or 2 against Cincinnati, and perhaps a split with Baltimore. That seems inconceivable right now, based on the early play of each team. So, is this what we’ve got, or should we expect better overall play in coming weeks?
I did not mean to insult you/your question, just to highlight that we/the Browns are responsible for the product on the field, which has been awful.
I do think we are better than we’ve played, particularly against Denver. I think the problem is that if Daboll doesn’t change his philosophy quickly, we won’t be able to show it all year.
I didn’t take it as any kind of insult – sorry if my response came off that way. It just appeared to me that I didn’t frame the question very well, so I wanted to clarify and see if I could redirect the conversation a bit. I respect your opinion, and welcome any insight you or others can give. Frankly, I’m mystified why the team looks this bad at this point. I didn’t expect them to be very good, but I did expect them to look like they had some clue as to how to organize an offense. The play on the field has been very poor, but I’m even more concerned with the coaching and play calling. I don’t think the players are being put in a position to win often enough. For example, this team will probably not be successful very often playing from behind: they can’t run effectively enough, and the passing game (thrower and receivers) aren’t sufficiently skilled to carry the team by themselves. Knowing that, wouldn’t it be wise to do anything possible to score early, given the chance? I thought the playcalling after the Bronco’s fumble was very poor. One throw to Edwards (on which he made an outstanding catch of a poorly thrown ball), and then two runs into the line, followed by a pass thrown short of the end zone. Not one shot into the endzone in the whole possession, which started at the 22, if I remember correctly. It looked like a “don’t screw up” offensive set, content to settle for 3 rather than pushing for 7.
I didn’t expect our offense to replace our defense in the “how did anyone work on this for a whole summer and still have it be this bad?!” sense either.
The sequencing has been bad (and I haven’t been able to watch the tape of the Broncos game for more than one reason, so I am not completely sure on this) but the plays themselves don’t seem to be very good either.
Right now, we are David, and we are playing Goliath. David doesn’t win by fighting a conventional fight. We need to stop running what looked like conventional plays (with WRs in deep routes, TEs and backs underneath) and we need to find something that works. Going for 7 instead of settling for 3 is the kind of twisted logic I’d like to see us use right now.
Lets let Josh Cribbs throw. Lets run with 3 or 4 WR as a base offense for a game. Lets go to a more west coast/short passing game. Lets zone block and roll Quinn out on some naked bootlegs. Hell, let’s move the pocket to buy some time and use some run-n-shoot concepts.
I thought we were going to be super-flexible on offense to the point where we could run or pass 80% of the time if thats what it took to win. Right now, I don’t see that kind of courage in our playcalling, design, or sequencing. We are going to have to keep defenses guessing, because we don’t have the talent to just line up and win right now—and if we do we aren’t showing it.
what are we doing
I wonder what the guys in charge are talking about ?I saw the team start to dial up the passing game but things fell apart. So The team will look at what they asked the team to do and then try and help them understand what they did to mess it up. Or they will start someone else its that black and white.I can not stop thinking about just how many drop’s have we seen so far this year.I wonder how our guys stand up to the other teams in the nfl.As for the draft its a crap shoot on guys you pick.We had lots of holes to fill and still do. I do know timing is so important and our timing is not so good.I wonder why that is ,I bet lots of you can offer up why. Can you say its all timing No, as the patterns and the reads are important in the nfl and only a few people know who is messing things up.We do need to hang on to the ball more and thats drilled in to players as they come up to this level of play.But when you move people to other jobs on the team thats all new.Cribbs not hanging on to the ball after the catch as he is not used to that as much as players who have been ther for years. It is a new team all around time is needed to see just what can be fixed or if it will need to be fixed by a trade or draft.That’s the guy in charges job!!! Now the play calling that’s important and I wonder if its watered down for the team that’s on the field or what.Playing it safe is what it looks like but its hard to know what the game plan was for us. But you can bet your last buck that the guy in charge knows what we were trying to do.Oh and why we did not do it too. Not like last year so it is a long road and I am in need of lots of beer to make it down that road !!!Hay we have the draft to think about ,will he trade down this time with the #3 pick next year?
There is hope...BUT.
The Browns are only a season removed from their breakout 10 – 6 season. MOST of the core of that team is still there. I think it was an absolute Mistake to fire Romeo, (Who, it must be noted gave the team their best season in the young franchises history) and replace him with Mangini who was only mediocre last year if not downright poor. The pieces are there, but someone has to make them fit, and that is clearly not happening.
Yeah, alotta Brown’s fans have selective memories. It was Romeo that put the pieces together to give us our ONLY winning season in franchise history, so by all means, let’s fire him after a bad year (cause Lord knows there are NO losing seasons in Cleveland, Browns fans wouldn’t tolerate it for a moment) and then, let’s replace the only coach that EVER won for us with a guy who’s only renown is totally choking in the clutch.
Yeah.
Let’s do THAT.
We won in 2007 despite Romeo, not because of him. He got “field goaled” in Oakland, and he gave the green light to air it out at the end of the first half of the Bengals game in horrible conditions. The offense lead that team, and the OC was hired by the GM b/c Romeo’s were so inept. His incompetence at in game decisions reset the floor for coaches.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
Didn’t we have another winning season under Butch Davis where we made the playoffs and almost beat the steelers behind Kelly Holcomb?
Yes. That’s partially why I posted the “straw man alert”. Chuck R set up a false argument. It appears that by “franchise history” he also means “history since 1999.” This is a franchise with a long and respected history, although it’s hard to remember that now. Also, to say that Mangini’s “only renown” is for choking in the clutch is demonstrably incorrect.
Put the pieces together? I think he picked a starting QB with a coin toss and then tossed him out after a couple of games. The really telling thing on Crennel is that he is not doing anything now in the NFL anywhere. If it is so obvious he catapulted the Browns to victory, why isn’t he coaching somewhere… even as an assistant? All I know is that whatever he was fielding at the end of the year last year did not even resemble what I think of as NFL football.
Brownsyup
Romeo chose to take a year off. I think he may have had hip surgery or something, too. He was offered the Chief’s DC job and they were keeping it open for him but he didn’t want it. He could definitely get a job somewhere.
I honestly think he let Mel Tucker have too much control of the defense, and it was mostly Mel’s product on the field. Romeo definitely had success in NE where (also an assumption) Belichick probably laid out a lot of the plan and Romeo had to execute it. When it came down to being the guy to lay out the plan, he just wasn’t as good.
I think he could be a very good DC under a HC who was a take-charge kind of guy and had a clear idea of what he wanted to do.
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.
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
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.
