Terry Pluto Discusses the Thought of Trading Shaun Rogers
This was discussed late in the season by Pluto, and he's bringing it up again. While Rogers is a beast, I'd be more open to dealing Rogers than I would Joshua Cribbs...
over 2 years ago
Chris Pokorny
240 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I’d rather keep him. A lot of premier DTs in the league have been traded in the past few years, and most have at best returned a 3rd round pick and maybe an additional lower pick at best. Examples: Stroud, Jenkins, Shaun Rogers. I think the value to the Browns outweights the return.
If anyone offers us what the Pats got for Seymour, we jump at it, I’d think.
I’d take no less than a 2nd for Rogers.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Scratch that. 27 tackles, 2 sacks, a leg injury and a run defense that improves in his absence. I’d take a 3 for Rogers.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Rogers had an awful year this year. And he’s injured. And he’s old. We should get what we can while we can.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
He had a broken bone. That isn’t an injury that would take away from his ability.
If he tore an Achilles, then maybe I could see that.
Rogers will be 31 this upcoming season. When Rogers is 35, he will be what Rubin is now. Fat and a lane clogger. As for right now, Rogers is a pass rushing NT. There are about 3 of those walking the planet. Why trade ours unless we get a boatload back?
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
For as much as I like Rogers, he really underperformed in 2009 and with the emergence of Rubin at the end of the season, I say if the Browns can get at least a 2nd rounder for Rogers, then do it.
Trading Rogers would also free up a ton of money for other players like Cribbs (hint, hint), and Harrison to get resigned to new deals.
http://dawgscooper.blogspot.com/
Dawg Scooper: An Unofficial Cleveland Browns Source
Trading Rogers to free up money for Cribbs is backwards, and unneeded.
Shaun Rogers is 50x more valuable than Josh Cribbs. In fact, 50 may be on the low side.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
I’d be happy with a high 2nd, no less though.
"I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren
by johnnyphoenix on Jan 17, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
The problem with Pluto’s thinking is that he uses yards per game as his measuring stick.
Of course we were allowing less rushing YPG late in the season, we were winning games. Teams were forced to pass. At the start of the season, we were down 14 in the first quarter and the other team was running the ball for three solid quarters.
Pluto should have gone further into the numbers;
With Rubin as starting NT; 127 carries for 553 yards which is 4.35 YPC
With Rogers as starting NT; 379 carries for 1,761 yards which is 4.64 YPC
That is .29 which is a decent difference, but hardly earth shattering. But I went even deeper.
The teams that Rubin faced (Pittsburgh 19th, San Diego 31st, KC 11th, Oakland 21st, and Jacksonville 10th) averaged out to be the 18th ranked run team in the NFL. The Browns held SD and Pittsburgh below their yearly YPC average.
Rogers on the other hand faced on average the 14th ranked rushing offense. They held Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Detroit below their yearly YPC average.
Why is Rubin considered this magnificent run stopper? Maybe he plays “home” better than Rogers, but I don’t think that .29 YPC is enough of a reason to trade Rogers. If the opponent runs the ball 30 times, that is 9 yards a game. That would have made us the 27th ranked defense in the NFL instead of the 28th.
I think that Rubin can be a good player for us, and should be worked in to our defense. But they guy is the epitome of a two down player. Rogers on the other hand is a player that has to be game planned around. Rogers can make plays on downs 1-4.
A first, I would be cool with dealing Rogers. Anything less is foolish.
His point might not be so much that Rubin specifically is a magnificent run stopper, it’s that we weren’t “torn up” with Rogers absent.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jan 17, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
I can see that, but unless it is for a first rounder, trading Rogers doesn’t help this team.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 17, 2010 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
I do agree that the point was more about rubin, but people are skewing it to try to put down the talent of rogers
a leg injury and a run defense that improves in his absence
Rogers had an awful year this year. And he’s injured. And he’s old. We should get what we can while we can.
these are the points made on this message board. I do agree it is more supposed to be about the emergence of rubin but people are also trying to say that rogers is declining.
27 tackles and 2 sacks. He was a factor in the first Bengals game, but other than that he had a bad year.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
he had a bad year b/c he didn’t play the whole year. even when he played, near the later part of the season he was really banged up.
yeah…anthony gonzalez had a horrible year too…wait, he was on IR for the whole year…
just b/c someone is injured doesn’t automatically make them a bad player, old, and having an awful year.
He started 11 games. I don’t remember him being banged up at all this year. I do remember him hustling to the sideline to horsecollar Carson Palmer just before breaking his leg, so the idea that he was banged up near the end of his season is dubious.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
He did look worn out and beat up to me…one play does not disprove what I said…one play does not a season make.
He was just as good as last year at taking up blockers, which was his main job, and didn’t make as many plays as last year, but that is his secondary role.
the defense did not suffer with him in.
I wouldn’t expect a beat up 360 lb DT to be able to get to the sideline to make a play. Show me where he looked beat up. There’s tons of game film out there…
The defense allowed more yards per carry when he was in there.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
that is a bad argument…that is a fallback argument that is used to justify getting rid of a great player.
this is what Bernie19Kosar said
but I don’t think that .29 YPC is enough of a reason to trade Rogers. If the opponent runs the ball 30 times, that is 9 yards a game. That would have made us the 27th ranked defense in the NFL instead of the 28th.
the the difference was not significant enough to drastically improve the team. the reason we were better against the run can be attributed to many things.
we faced a lot of bad running teams. SD is horrible at running it, we couldn’t shut down KC…the only true achievement was shutting down MJD, but besides that, we faced some subpar rushing defenses.
teams ran the ball 12 more times on average with rogers than without. that is because they could keep our defense on the field by running it since they were up by large margins. in games where we led, they didn’t run it as much and didn’t establish the running game. pittsburgh factors into those numbers a lot and they never established the running game. that is because we were putting 8 men in the box constantly, AND the fact that they just aren’t a good running team.
Yet the coaches apparently don’t think that that’s the case.
(And for the record, I’m well aware of the .29 yard difference between Rogers and Rubin. I did the math and posted that last week.)
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
a
so not only do you know what are coaches are thinking, but you know their opinions about certain players??
It’s in the motherfucking article that started this discussion. It’s been quoted and discussed already. The coaches believe that Rogers has a tendency to free-lance, abandoning his run stuffing duties. Learn to fuckin’ read.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
there is no need for language on here. yeah, the article said he “tended” to “freelance” but does that mean he doesn’t stuff the run or clog up the line ever?? No. rogers is a valuable player…
terry pluto also forgets to mention that in the last 5 games, the offense was much better so teams were passing more and therefore had 13 less rushes a game in the last 5 games…so if you are going to take terry pluto at face value, there is no argument…you really have no argument.
there is no need for language on here.
Fuck you.
terry pluto also forgets to mention that in the last 5 games, the offense was much better so teams were passing more and therefore had 13 less rushes a game in the last 5 games…
Pluto was repeating what the coaches are saying. He didn’t forget to mention anything.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
again…I am just trying to have a civil debate…have I insulted you to the point that you have to resort to the F Bomb? you are being completely unnecessary and in fact, the one being argumentative (even though I was accused of it).
well he left out important information. the amount dropped b/c of the significant drop in carries. this happened b/c in the games rogers was out, the offense was much better and the other teams were often playing from behind.
Join the debate club at your middle school and see how far you get with phrases like ‘almost completely’ and ‘you are being completely unnecessary’.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
haha….
I would never tell anyone they are being completely unnecessary but no one would drop the F Bomb at debate club. your whole argument has turned into cursing me….all I am asking is for something more civil than the F word.
I would never tell anyone they are being completely unnecessary
You just did.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
Whoa guys. Stop with the f-bombs. This whole conversation will likely be deleted soon. But there is no reason for it to come to this.
Bross, again, try to understand people’s point and make a point of your own instead of couching your assertions in your weird “i agree, but i don’t agree” style.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 17, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve already cooled it on the foul language.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
As if your opinion had anything to do with it.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
stop being a five year old.
“I stopped doing it, but not because YOU told me to!”
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
What I said is 100% true. If that makes me a five year old, then so be it.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
you argue like a five year old.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Is that so? If I argue like a five year old, then it should be pretty easy to best me in a debate, no?
Topic of your choice (preferrably Browns related). Make a fan post explaining your position. I’ll be along shortly to trounce your ass in the comments section.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
no, thats the point, you can’t win an argument with a five year-old, because when they’re wrong they won’t admit it, and they result to personal attacks.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
They’re difficult to find when they’re wrapped in so many logical fallacies and fortified by your near complete inability to comprehend what you read.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
This was your first post in this thread:
I do agree that the point was more about rubin, but people are skewing it to try to put down the talent of rogers
a leg injury and a run defense that improves in his absence
Rogers had an awful year this year. And he’s injured. And he’s old. We should get what we can while we can.
these are the points made on this message board. I do agree it is more supposed to be about the emergence of rubin but people are also trying to say that rogers is declining.
That was in response to a long, thoughtful, researched post about the rush defense with and without Rogers. Your wording is confusing and lends itself to others getting annoyed, misunderstanding your point, and/or getting angry at you.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 17, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
I am sorry you are confused…
if they get angry, that makes them look bad, and makes them look like the fool. I have no control over what people think. I do not wish to have any control over how someone else thinks. if someone has a problem…whatever…does it affect me?? No…I dont take stuff like that personally either.
I’m not confused.
Just trying to help you out a little, and really, trying to help this website out.
When you confuse people with your logical fallacies, bad grammar and horrid writing, and the conversation devolves into 200 posts about semantics, it hurts the website.
And when you respond to people without understanding their point, and it ticks them off so much that they resort to bad language, it hurts the website.
I’m not worried about your feelings, I’m sure you’ll be fine. But I do want to make this a great place to discuss football. And your posts have started to become a giant buzz-kill. I’m not asking you to leave, just to refine and self-edit your posting a little.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
but I don’t make people argue about semantics. now you are holding me accountable for other people’s statements basically. you are saying (by insulting my posts) that I am the root cause of all the problems. I hurt the website because other people argue to me about semantics (and by the way, there was a whole argument about my use of the word semantics…) Maybe it is just that people like to argue, and argue with me. I am not going to be held responsible for other people’s actions. you are giving me too much credit. you are also taking the responsibility out of those who comment and saying it is in my hands.
1. You make people argue about semantics when you use bad grammar, bad style, logical fallacies, etc.
2. Without your posts- and the responses they beg- this discussion on Rogers and Rubin would flow much better.
3. You are a willing participant in the semantics discussions.
4. You are the common element here, not anyone else.
5. You have posted something like 1000 comments within the last month. To put that in context, I have been a regular on this website for 2 and a half years. Barring some major development with the team, I won’t be making my 2000th comment until February. Just think about that for a second.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I think we’re pulling out a huge double standard here. Sure, he posts too much, but his grammar isn’t any worse than many people on the board, he isn’t using fallacies any more than most people, and unless you read at an 8th grade level, the post you quoted is perfectly understandable.
From an outside perspective it seems like a few people have just gotten annoyed with the volume of posts and decided to nitpick everything he says.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
If there is a flaw with my standard, it is that I don’t have the time and energy to apply it to every poster.
bross has posted an absurd number of times and has caught my attention more than most. Usually I don’t get into the moderating stuff. I leave it to Brad and Chris, but I really felt he crossed the line.
Using constant ellipses and the constant triple question marks and other punctuation is grating. Especially when it is in over 150 posts in one thread.
I will do my best to point out logical fallacies any time I see them.
And if you can see his point in the post I quoted, you are more clairvoyant than most. He said he agrees it is more about Rubin. Who did he agree with? I don’t think anyone made that point. And what is more about Rubin? Rogers injury? Trading Rogers? The stats without Rogers?
He then said he thought people are “skewing it to try to put down the talent of rogers”. Skewing what? And who was putting down Rogers’ talent?
What was his point? He purportedly affirmed a position that nobody made and then disagreed with something that was never asserted. It lead to the confusion of several posters and the eventual cussing of others.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 18, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
I agree bross has posted an absurd amount of comments. I also agree that the ellipses and triple question marks bother the hell out of me.
Who did he agree with?
I don’t know, that wass probably poor wording on his part/
And what is more about Rubin?
the article. the article has more to do with rubin being a good traditional nose tackle, and is not necessarily a knock on rogers.
He then said he thought people are "skewing it to try to put down the talent of rogers". Skewing what? And who was putting down Rogers’ talent?
skewing the article. this is what golanbatrac said:
Rogers had an awful year this year. And he’s injured. And he’s old. We should get what we can while we can.
he also said he would take a third for rogers. that seems to be bashing rogers talent to me.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
To continue what Ryan said, I’ve also been a regular for 2 1/2 years — and I’ve been commenting about as much as anybody over that period — and I have almost 4000 comments. You have 1000 comments in about 2 or 3 weeks. Don’t you see the disparity? You take over threads on this site with your constant posting and many people don’t like that.
If you post less and think about what you’re saying a little longer then people will respect you much more. Please think about that.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:32 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think most of the more involved posters here agree: please continue to post, but do so in a vastly more concise manner.
As one who is guilty of overly long comments too often, I can state unequivocally that most people skip longer comments.
After all, brevity is the soul of wit.
Yea, I will echo danvail. I like your passion as a fan, and I think it is clear that you can bring some good analysis to the table. Don’t let this stop you from posting.
It’s true for me that I tend to read the shorter comments. However, if you look at how Ryan Kelsey above structures some of his longer posts with numbering, etc. it becomes easier to read.
see this comment is a much better reply than “its in the motherfucking article” or “learn to fuckin read”
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
I thought that Rogers’ job was supposed to be eating up blockers so that others (i.e. linebackers) could get the tackles and sacks, not making all the plays himself.
That should be his job, but he’s obviously not doing it.
From Pluto’s article:
But the current coaching staff believes Rogers has a tendency to “free-lance,” not sticking with the scheme and covering the middle of the line.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Well, the quote might indicate that he wasn’t doing his job properly, but the drop in tackles and sacks from 2008 to 2009 would tend to indicate that he was actually doing less freelancing.
Personally, I couldn’t say whether he was or not – I’d need someone like Rufio to break down the plays. I’m just saying that those numbers don’t lend themselves to the point you are trying to make.
Actually, if Pluto is not lying and indeed this point was taken from the coaching staff, then I think we should be willing to accept it as fact, unless you think that the coaches don’t know what they are doing.
I’m not saying that at all. I was just pointing out that those numbers are a poor yard stick for determining if he was doing what I’ve been given to understand is the primary job of a NT, eating up space and occupying blockers, rather than freelancing and racking up tackles and sacks.
I don’t think Pluto is the kind of writer who makes up things like that, nor am I saying that the coaches don’t know their jobs. I do wonder, however, about the context of that observation. Looking at the numbers as cited in this thread, that comment from the coaching staff actually seems to fit the ’08 season better than the ’09 season.
I was simply commenting on the relevance of the stats that he was using for his argument.
That’s legitimate. The question is, did his numbers fall off because he was free-lancing less or because he wasn’t playing as well? I think it’s the latter, though I can understand were someone to think the former.
Either way, it seems that he did some free-lancing in 09 (and enough that it’s become noteworthy to the coaching staff).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that I am trying to put less emphasis on his stats in this case, and am relying more on what appears to be the direct opinion of the coaching staff.
I found that freelancing statement to be the most interesting thing here. If Mangini and staff really feel like he’s not playing their schemes, that’s going to be very significant as far as how they view his results….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 18, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
I think at his age you expect decline from over 90% of NFL players, the question is how much and how many more productive seasons does he have left?
but when healthy, there isn’t a huge decline yet (that we have truly seen) from sean rogers. Lineman do last longer than a lot of players and tend to decline less (except for St. Clair)
O linemen and D linemen are two completely different animals.
If I hear "There's always next year" one more time...
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 17, 2010 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
2008 — 61 tackles, 4.5 sacks
2009 — 27 tackles, 2 sacks
Unless you were expecting him to more than double his tackles and sacks in the last 6 games, I don’t know how you can say there wasn’t a huge decline in production.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
It’s actually worse. I was grabbing his 2008 stats from pro-football-reference.com. Pluto has his stats for 08 as 73 tackles and 4.5 sacks.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
so you are gonna go with pluto over a website dedicated to knowing statistics??? no wonder youthink this way.
It’s hard for me to keep up with you when you often times dismiss people’s use of stats, and then decide on another post that they are relevant.
So, you’re not going to address the point then?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
the point is that statistics do not matter for a NT. it is like statistics for a guy like bruce bowen. what he does, does not go on a stat sheet.
If they’re insignificant (which is bullshit), then why would it matter if I took Pluto’s word over pfr.com?
Again, are you going to address the point, or not?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I was just pointing out that you are not even using the right data…you shouldn’t be using tackles to judge a NT but using the wrong statistics is like a double whammy.
Rogers doesn’t play the Nose like an NT. That’s the point. He didn’t last year, and he didn’t this year. As a pass rushing DT he should not see his stats fall that much from one year to the next. Since they did, it’s reasonable to wonder if he’s hit the wall, and to discuss whether he should be moved while he still has some value.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I don’t disagree with moving him. I just feel that he isn’t a “bad player” like you think and I think he is worth at least a mid second.
Where did I say he was a bad player?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Rogers had an awful year this year. And he’s injured. And he’s old. We should get what we can while we can.
wow that sounds like your opinion on a great player…
He wasn’t great this year. He also wasn’t bad. We’re paying him to be great, though, and if his performance this year is an indication of future performance, we should move him for a pick or two.
That’s not calling him bad. Not at all.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
wow…eating your words…
Rogers had an awful year this year
He also wasn’t bad
don’t these kinda contradict themselves??
No matter what you are calling him, a reasonable person can assume you were calling him a bad player. you say a guy had an awful year, is old, injured, and we should get what we can while we can, THEN you turn around and say “he really isn’t that bad”…these statements are completely contradictory.
whatever you said, what your original words implied was that he is bad. you don’t have to say “he was bad” to get the message across. if you really didn’t mean by that, that he wasn’t that bad, you should choose your wording better.
An awful year doesn’t automatically make for a bad player. That’s why you debate whether or not to trade him. That’s why you debate whether his performance this year is an indication of future performance.
There’s no contradiction.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
you said a guy was old, unhealthy and played awful.
if you were implying less than he was a bad player, then you need to change your wording. that is all I am saying. you may not see this, but they imply that you think he is bad.
I do not debate whether or not to trade him. I think that for the right price, I wouldn’t mind it.
What part of that is untrue? Is Rogers not old? Is he not injured? Did he not have an awful year versus expectations?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
but by saying all those things together and then saying you can take whatever you can get, you are saying he is less than bad???
If so then choose your wording better.
He did not have an awful year vs expectations I would say. It is hard to say b/c he also missed over 1/4 of the season. yes, if healthy he probably would not have exceeded expectations, but I would not say he was awful compared to them. he also set the expectations unnaturally high.
He’s a three time ProBowler. I think it reasonable to expect him to put up better numbers than Kenyon Coleman.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
There is clearly difference between being bad in a singular year and being a bad player overall. You are refusing to recognize this difference.
i guess it was for you…to me he implied that he was a bad player and then went back on it. I am not going on what he meant, but how I interpreted it.
And here is the problem. Spend a little more time trying to understand what the author of a comment meant. Then you wouldn’t have these types of misunderstandings. Nothing anyone has said here has even implied Rogers is a bad player. He is a very good and sometimes great player, that is very accepted amongst football fans.
fka "DaytonDogg". Now a contributor to SBN's Dawgs By Nature. www.dawgsbynature.com
by Ryan Kelsey on Jan 17, 2010 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
The wording threw me off with the original statement. the person used the word awful and said he would take what he could get in a trade.
I spent time understanding it and I am looking at it now, and I still would look back on it again (if i saw it for the first time) and assume the same thing. the wording just leads me to believe things that aren’t there.
You need to stop this. Seriously. When multiple people are telling you that you aren’t reading people’s comments clearly enough then maybe you should think about changing your habits instead of always getting defensive and arguing that you did nothing wrong. It’s very, very frustrating, and it leads to long threads like this which most people don’t want to read.
This has happened many times with you already and it needs to stop. We can’t let one person dominate this site like you have been doing. Stop and listen to people once in a while before you start spitting our replies left and right. Or, if you have a problem understanding what people are saying, end the discussion and move on to something else.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
I am not even getting defensive here…
Again…if people comment to me, It them not me. I am not solely responsible for these long threads. saying that is fallacious. I am not responsible for what other people post. if I was, then maybe i would be responsible for all of these long threads.
As of right now you have 63 out of 139 posts.
Unreal.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
You are not listening to me or Ryan or anyone else. Stop blaming everyone else and take some responsibility for yourself.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:07 AM EST up reply actions
Two quotes from you:
the point is that statistics do not matter for a NT.
I was just pointing out that you are not even using the right data
Which is it? Stats don’t matter or only certain stats matter?
by Roger Dorn on Jan 17, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i guess you did not read the whole thing.
I do think that stats don’t matter, but I was pointing out that using incorrect stats does not help his argument, it only hurts it even more.
I read the whole thing.
Your second sentence implies that there is right data. If you believe that stats are meaningless, then ALL data is incorrect, there is no right data in your opinion.
I never said data is incorrect. you are completely misinterpreting me. what I am saying is that stats do not mean much for NTs.
then I pointed out just the facts that he was using weren’t correct…I was not saying that correct ones were relevant.
You are still contradicting yourself. If stats are meaningless for a NT, then there is no correct data to use for a NT (in your opinion.)
I didn’t say they were completely meaningnless and if I did, I misspoke. I said, they really don’t matter much because the stats tell something, but not the whole story.
I agree 100% with this. If you had said this initially, then we won’t have to devolve into 20 post counts debating semantics.
I was not clear enough
This happens often. As I’ve mentioned to you many times, maybe you should put a little more thought into your comments before you post them so hopefully this wouldn’t happen as much.
And you also need to be able to admit you’re wrong when someone shows you evidence that you said something incorrect. I don’t know how many times I’ve showed you evidence that you were wrong then you argued about it for 4 or 5 more comments before finally admitting that you made a mistake. Stop doing that. Everyone makes mistakes, just say “I was wrong” and move on.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
wait…didn’t I just say I was wrong??
I said I was wrong and then you go and criticize me for past mistakes and that I need to admit when I am wrong.
I’m criticizing the fact that it took you about a dozen posts to admit you were wrong. And you’ve done that many times before.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 18, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t know, I think we’re being too hard on him. almost nobody on this board (myself included) ever admits they’re wrong.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, I don’t think that’s true. The spirit of debate is what makes these comment sections interesting.
I admit that I’m wrong all of the time (but only when I am, in fact, wrong).
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions
debate doesn’t mean someone admits they’re wrong at the end
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
No question, I am just saying it is fun when some debates go on longer because of the refusal to yield the point at first disagreement.
oh i agree with that, there’s no fun when someone gives in right away. my point was just that there are a good deal of people who never give up, even when proven wrong. and like i said, i’m as guilty as anyone.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
i think the point was that he was not only using a stat, but quoting the wrong number for that stat.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
1. I am the one who pointed out that the stats were wrong.
2. I am the one who posted the ‘correct’ stats.
3. The ‘correct’ stats didn’t diminish the point I was making, they actually strengthened the point.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
i don’t know about other people, but i would trust a website dedicated to statistics over a beat writer.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
I took the stats from the article since we were discussing the article. I didn’t take the time to grab the official stat from NFL.com (which is 76) because the precise number of tackles was unimportant — no matter which source you choose (Pluto at 73, yahoo at 75, or nfl.com at 76) the point stands. He has significantly fewer tackles this year than last.
Also: I just figured out why the number was so low at pfr.com. I misread the stat sheet. I didn’t add Assists to tackles (pfr.com inexplicably doesn’t have a separate category for total tackles like other sites).
Adding to the confusion, nfl.com calls Tackles ‘total’, yahoo calls tackles ‘solo’ and pfr calls tackles ‘tackles’. Further adding to the confusion, nfl.com calls tackles + assists ‘comb’, pfr doesn’t have a category for tackles + assists, and yahoo calls them ‘total’.
I spend a lot of time looking at stats, and if you were to do the same, you’d see that the stats on different sites are often different. For example, pfr.com has Rogers playing in 10 games this year; nfl.com has him starting 11 games. In this instance, pfr.com is wrong (the Bengals game in which Rogers was injured was in week twelve (meaning he started 11 games this year given the bye week).
Generally, nfl.com has the official stats, but I like many people here I use pfr.com on a regular basis (even though their stats are sometimes off) because they have more and better stats and the formatting is more useful than at NFL.com.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I think that PFR has the best way of doing it.
Solo tackles, IMO, are a much better gauge of what kind of an impact a defender makes.
For example, in ’98, Ray Lewis had 120 tackles, but 101 of those tackles were solo.
On the other hand, Andra Davis had 149 tackles in ’05, but only 89 of them were solo tackles.
You list those side by side, Andra Davis had 149 and Ray Lewis had 120. Ray Lewis’ tackles were of much greater importance because he didn’t require help from another defender. Solo tackles should be the only stat mentioned when discussing “tackles”.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
I do not think that solo tackles should be the only stat discussed (assists do matter a little). I do agree with you though, solo tackles are a much better gauge of tackling ability.
To me, an assisted tackle means that a player isn’t able to take a man down one-on-one or it is a pile jump.
Until the NFL makes a ruling on what the difference between a solo tackle and an assisted tackle is, I will go on solo alone.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
Truthfully, we’d be better off in a rotation, letting Rubin play on obvious run downs, and letting Rogers create havoc on all other downs.
I’d definitely like a year to see how this works out unless we get an offer to good to refuse.
"I don’t dance too much." --Mike Holmgren
by johnnyphoenix on Jan 17, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Good point. We seem to have two weapons here, both of whom have some good capabilities. This is one way to use them both, and it seems to fit the depth and rotation notions of Mangini and staff. There’s also the idea of moving Rogers, which we’ve kicked around here before.
The ‘trade him or not?’ perspective tends to leave out these other options….
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 18, 2010 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
There’s also the question of what trading him would do to the depth at that position. As long as the salary cap will bear it, I prefer the idea of keeping them both while looking for someone to groom as an eventual replacement for Rogers.
The only exception that I see to that is if someone offered up a solid impact player in return or a draft pick that would let the staff get a guy that they think would really help out. I know there was talk (on this site at least) that the talent pool would likely be deeper this year due to the issues with the CBA. If that proves to be the case, there could still be some decent talent available in the third round. The question is, would that talent be enough to offset the loss of Rogers or would we be hurting one position to help another.
yes. the team was doing well in all areas…
plus yes…we faced some mediocre running teams. it is not a feat to stop SD from running. with pittsburgh we were loading men in the box. the only game that actually impressed me against the run that much was jacksonville. we held MJD down. that being said, our run D did improve, it also faced not great running teams. jamaal charles owned us in that game.
I agree the difference isn’t much…
Charles owned us on the outside. He didn’t get shit up the middle. Rubin was named defensive MVP for that game.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
charles did get stuff up the middle…no matter what, he still ran for 154 yards and 6.4 ypc….
I was actually looking of film from that game and jamaal charles had great success running up the middle. his big 41 yard TD run was up the middle….just because rubin was named MVP they must have not been able to run the ball up the middle? I actually went back and watched it…the defense just broke down in the middle of the front 7.
His big run was on a pitch to the outside. Rubin tried like hell to get from the hash (where he lined up) to the numbers (where Charles crosses the line of scrimmage) and nearly did get there despite the cut block that should have negated the TD.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8151b78a
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Yea that run was a designed pitch sweep which he cut back inside after passing the defensive lineman.
he cut inside AT the line of scrimmage. when he ran past the first line of defense, he was between the tackles (or where the tackles were). it doesn’t matter what it was designed to be…a designed run turns into a pass play, is it still a run??? the defensive line broke down and he was able to find a hole.
that wasn’t his only run through the inside. I remember watching the game. he had quite a few good runs between the tackles.
Plain as day. Look at the fucking highlight.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
plain as day that it was a pitch? hell yeah…but that he was running to the outside No. where he ran was where the LTs inside shoulder had been 3 seconds earlier.
He crossed the line of scrimmage three or more yards outside of where the LT lined up. Plain as day.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
you can say it is plain as day and it must be???
to me it looks like he crossed where the LT was. I wonder if you are looking at some other video…
I’m looking at the video I posted a link to.
It’s plain as day because it’s plain as day.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I see it as him running where the LT used to be. you can say what you want, I can say what I want.
I am looking at it too.
This isn’t a matter of opinion. The video shows precisely where the tackle started, and where Charles crossed the LOS. Plain as day.
Again, are you blind?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
please stop insulting my sight.
your argument is completely unnecessary.
the only point you have proven is how much hate you have in your soul.
Ha ha. Hate in my soul…
Is an insult an insult when it’s the only conclusion to be drawn from the available facts?
your argument is completely unnecessary.
Congratulations! You found a subject!
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
an insult is saying F—- You…
that is competely unnecessary.
now you are calling my argument unnecessary….hahaha…
I don’t know what happened to have you exude this anger, but it is not appreciated or needed. honestly, i don’t care anymore what you have to say. Hateful people have nothing good to say in my book (especially in the middle of the hate)
an insult is saying F—- You…
‘Fuck you’ was an insult to your eyesight? How’s that?
now you are calling my argument unnecessary….hahaha…
Where did I call you argument unnecessary?
I don’t know what happened to have you exude this anger, but it is not appreciated or needed. honestly, i don’t care anymore what you have to say. Hateful people have nothing good to say in my book (especially in the middle of the hate)
I feel the same about stupid people.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
you implied that all your insults were insults b/c they were conclusions from facts. if you were talking about eyesight, you should have said eyesight. instead you were talking about all your insulting of me in general.
you quoted me saying something was unnecessary and then said that I found my subject. maybe you are implying things again you do not mean, but to me that implies that you were saying my argument was unnecessary
I don’t know what the last part is supposed to mean…
I don’t know what the last part is supposed to mean…
Correction: you didn’t understand a single word I posted.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
Again…what is that supposed to mean.
I knew what you were saying (in the quote you quoted of me) but I wasn’t sure what you were implying by saying it.
You really should remove the word ‘imply’ from your vocabulary, and ‘semantics’ as well.
Once you start using them, any inherent value to the conversation is typically long gone.
by RelapsingDawgCatcher on Jan 18, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
I was a good 4-5 yards to the outside of where the tackle lined up pre-snap.
HE GAVE A LINK OF THE PLAY IN QUESTION!
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 2:10 AM EST up reply actions
that may be true, but charles cut inside of a guard that hadn’t pulled, that would seem to indicate rubin could have been there too.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
to be clearer, charlse cut upfield inside of the left guard. isn’t that where rubin plays?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Rubin does not play 5 yards outside of the tackle box.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
rubin plays next to the left guard doesn’t he?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
But on that play, the LG is zone blocking to the left. His first step is to the left.
Rubin on the other hand has to react to the play, while being cut blocked.
I am not going to blame Rubin for not catching Jamal Charles on a sweep away from him. Jamal Charles is one of the 5 fastest RB’s in the NFL.
This may be the dumbest thing I have ever discussed.
by Bernie19Kosar on Jan 18, 2010 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The tackle’s left foot was on the top of the onscreen graphic.
When Charles turned upfield his right foot was on the bottom of the graphic.
When he crossed the LOS his left foot was almost on the number “50”
About 2 or 3 yards past the LOS he juked inside and then back out
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
charles cut upfield INSIDE the left guard.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
not trying to say his larger point is true, but he’s right about the video
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
How so? The run was to the outside.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
The original point was the role of Rubin which is to clog up the middle. If Rubin had gone that far outside to stop the play, then he has vacated his position in the mold of Lavar Arrington. Gap assignments are important, which is exactly what the coaching staff is talking about with Shaun Rogers. Rogers may actually have been more likely than Rubin to make a play on this particular play, but in general the staff likes that Rubin sticks to his assignment.
i agree with all of that, i’m just saying that people who think that video shows the run was way too far outside for rubin to get to are wrong. charles cut inside the left guard, and it isn’t too big of a stretch for rubin to get there if the guard can.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
Who said that that run was too far outside for Rubin to get to? I said the run was to the outside. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you and bross claim it was to the inside. The question isn’t and has never been ‘should Rubin have gotten there?’; the question is ‘would Rubin have to go to the outside (outside the tackle box) to get there or did Charles run the ball inside?’ It’s clear to anyone who hasn’t got his head lodged firmly up his backside that Charles was outside of the tackle box when he crossed the line of scrimmage.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
The left guard who was five yards outside of the tackle box.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
rubin plays inside the left guard doesn’t he? shouldn’t he be able to get there too?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Tell me that wasn’t a cut block.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
‘It almost completely missed rubin completely’? What does that even mean?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
the block barely even hit him…the guy got half of rubin’s foot from what I saw. it barely even slowed him…he didn’t get to charles b/c charles was so damn fast…
He dove at Rubin’s ankles taking both his feet out from under him. Rubin put a hand on the ground and caught himself. By the time he got outside to where Charles was, Charles was past the line of scrimmage.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
you know what…you can say that, I say that he would not have gotten there anyways and if he did, charles was going too fast to rubin get a good read on him…all he would have been able to do at BEST is get a hand or 2 on charles’ jersey.
this is all speculation anyways. it could have just as easily been someone that tripped, as it could have been a chop block. he looked like he was supposed to pull but then fell when going that way. he didn’t actually dive at rubin’s ankles, but rubin did get tied up with him for a moment.
you know what…you can say that, I say that he would not have gotten there anyways and if he did, charles was going too fast to rubin get a good read on him…all he would have been able to do at BEST is get a hand or 2 on charles’ jersey.
I agree. Even had Rubin not been cut blocked, I doubt he could have gotten to Charles given that Charles was outside the tackle box when he crossed the LOS.
this is all speculation anyways. it could have just as easily been someone that tripped, as it could have been a chop block. he looked like he was supposed to pull but then fell when going that way. he didn’t actually dive at rubin’s ankles, but rubin did get tied up with him for a moment.
Not speculation. A guy dove at his ankles. That is a cut block.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
lets not go into the “outside the tackle box” thing now…i feel like I am arguing with a wall…something that doesn’t move no matter how much truth is thrown at it…
I would say it was speculation. the player was a guard, not the tradition center that faces rubin. to me it looked like he was pulling like he was assigned and he tripped. he not only dived in front of rubin but dove sideways and was facing that way.
lets not go into the "outside the tackle box" thing now…
That’s what we’ve been arguing from the start!
i feel like I am arguing with a wall…something that doesn’t move no matter how much truth is thrown at it…
What is this ‘truth’ you speak of?
If by ‘wall’ you mean ‘someone who won’t let you continually move the goalposts as you always do’, then yeah, I’m a ‘wall’.
I would say it was speculation. the player was a guard, not the tradition center that faces rubin. to me it looked like he was pulling like he was assigned and he tripped. he not only dived in front of rubin but dove sideways and was facing that way.
It doesn’t matter who it was. A cut block is a cut block. That was a cut block.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
yeah…i “continually move the goalposts”… /sarc
Back to the cut block thing, I do not see it as being a definite cut block so to me it is completely irrelevant. It could have been an actual block or someone who fell and rubin got tangled with them…it is up to interpretation. no matter what you say, I see it differently.
yeah…i "continually move the goalposts"… /sarc
Yeah, you do. Maybe you’re not smart enough to realize that you’re doing it, but yeah, you do it all the time (and that’s why so many people have given you a hard time. That and the spam.)
Plain as day.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
i do not even honestly know what the phrase even means…if it means I am constantly changing my argument, that is pretty much false (and I could easily say the same thing about you on this thread)
Thanks again for calling me dumb and not able to understand something…
i do not even honestly know what the phrase even means…if it means I am constantly changing my argument, that is pretty much false (and I could easily say the same thing about you on this thread)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost
Thanks again for calling me dumb and not able to understand something…
You’re welcome.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
I would not say, now looking it up, that it really applies…
if you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic. i figured i didn’t have to do /sarc.
seriously dude, i’m not trying to say his point is right, but you’re being an asshole.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I’m an asshole. No doubt. And bross has earned all of the assholishness that’s been directed at him.
If I wanted to hang around with spammers and ignoramuses, I’d post at the PD.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
the only way somebody earns assholishness is by being an assshole, and as far as i can tell he’s been trying to be civil the whole time. by acting like an 8th grader you ruin that. i can’t take you seriously when you act like this. you’re just as annoying right now as his 2000 posts.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
I must be a pretty smart five year old to already be in the eighth grade!
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
this comment is exactly what i’m talking about, there is nothing mature about this response.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Presnap:
http://picasaweb.google.com/golanbatrac/Ubb#5427923091096944386
As Charles crosses the line of scrimmage:
http://picasaweb.google.com/golanbatrac/Ubb#5427923097020859522
(Yellow arrow points to Charles; red line is the tackle box; pink line is where charles crosses the LOS.)
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
good for you…you took too long to make a point i don’t honestly care about anymore…
(plus in the second picture he is juking to the right and by the time he is about even with the line, he is close to the red line…and where rubin almost got him I believe was in between where the tackles were which is part of the point since we are arguing about rubin)
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
by Villeslgr on Jan 17, 2010 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Excellent.
Rec.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
No. He disappears behind the tackle as he crosses the LOS (which is why I used the frame that I did). In the frame I posted, Rubin is already at the red line ready to pounce. Had Charles gone more than a half step to his right, Rubin would have had him.
Try again.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
maybe he would have had him…we are getting into the realm of speculation and I don’t care to speculate this late at night, especially on a subject I feel we have worn out.
backpedal…backpedal…backpedal…
exit stage left…
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 17, 2010 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
he cut inside the left guard, that is “plain as day”
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Five or more yards outside of the tackle box, which is the point.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
my point is if the left guard could get there, its not outrageous to expect rubin to get there too.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
To get outside?
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 18, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
do you think it is acceptable to say rubin should be able to stay close to a guard when he is playing nose tackle?
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
golanbatrac vs. bross09…might be the first time I’ve seen two people with so many back-and-forth responses to each other in one thread on DBN. Just try not to let things get too out of hand as I “z out” for the night ;)
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
I really am done for the night too. If he wants to still post, that is fine by me. I am probably gonna “z out” too (I don’t know if that was a z button reference or not but if it was, nice).
Ha, I just meant going to sleep.
Dawgs By Nature - Covering the Cleveland Browns on SB Nation.
by Chris Pokorny on Jan 17, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
Shaun Rogers is a nice guy, who is a monster on the field. He still has star power, and I see how he is big trade bait. I view him as a line buster, he´s pure havoc in the middle. I´m for a more balanced attack, so I too like Ahtyba Rubin for one of the three slots, albeit outside, not at NG as many are insinuating.
Shaun Roger´s lag against the rush can be attributed to offenses running away from him, he has not faltered. We must not downgrade him, to make a trade feasible. So once again we face the challenge of finding a rationale for trading a potential Pro Bowler.
We will trade a lot of players, this still isn´t a new team as it should have been with a new coach. I actually think, freeing ourselves of obligations toward the two QB´s is the top priority. Most people agree meanwhile, that neither has implications towards our future as a team. Also the 4-3 personnel must go. We like linebackers, and I like to say “the 3-4 works”…3 on 5 creates more havoc than 4 on 5. The defensive end at outside linebacker experiment has failed, we want sporty guys. In this light we have a lot of dead weight on our roster. So I welcome Prez Holmgren and the new FO, hopefully to include Big O Lerner, evaluating the roster.
you know what everyone???
I just woke up this morning and there were like 50 new comments on here. none from me and aboue half from golanbatrac
This would be an example of a good time to move on. I’ve defended you in the past and disagreed with you as well. You say you are defending yourself, proving your point, etc.
This is doing neither, it’s just continuing argument that has nothing to do with football, when you could could have just moved on and let the other person keep arguing with themselves or whatever they felt they wanted to do.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
so are most others, and unfortunately it’s because of your comments. please take the advice of the veteran posters:
1. discontinue straw man arguments.
2. think more, post less.
i like a lot of what you post, you seem to have a good deal of knowledge of the team. just try to package it better.
i think about half of the blame here goes to the way people responded.
I hate the steelers the way a mother loves a child.
by notthatnoise on Jan 18, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
I think the sooner we drop it and let Mr. Ross enact his new outlook the better.
by danvail on Jan 18, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
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
Related FanShots on Dawgs By Nature
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
