What happened Sunday, and what is wrong with the Browns offense?
Sunday was ugly, and there were some obvious problems and questions (with Colt, the WRs, usage of Hillis, etc. etc.). But when I look back at the numbers I still find it hard to understand how / why we lost this game so badly.
TOP: Browns 36:53, Titans 23:07
3rd down efficiency: Browns 40%, Titans 33%
McCoy: 66% completion rate for 350 yds
Hasselbeck: 50% completion rate for 220 yds
Total offense: Browns 416 yds, Titans 332 yds
Turnovers: Browns 1, Titans 1
One thing seems pretty obvious. The Browns are severely lacking in the "big play" department. But the Titans murdered us with them. Here is a brief snapshot of the demise of the Browns on Sunday and the "big plays" that doomed us. While the first Titans TD drive wasn't exactly of the "big play" variety, looking at it on film it feels like it. It was just "boom, boom, BOOM" and it seemed like they made it look easy.
1st Qtr:
- early 1st quarter CJ breaks one for a 25 yard run.
- Hasselbeck for 18 yds to Hawkins up the middle.
- Hasselbeck for 12 yds to wide open Stevens for TD.
2nd Qtr (obviously two huge plays here that killed us)
- (early 2nd Qtr...) Hasselbeck 23 yd. toss to Cook who takes it 80 yds for the TD (a one play drive, BTW).
- (late 2nd Qtr...) Hasselbeck 23 yd. toss to Washington who takes it 57 yds to the Browns 4 yard line.
- Hasselbeck 4 yd. toss for the TD. (BTW, this 2nd TD was a four play drive - boom, boom, BOOM. boom).
3rd Qtr - Colt McCoy throws a terrible interception, returned for 97 yard TD.
Now that folks have had a couple of days to "cool down", I'd like to see more discussion, mostly on our offense and the passing game, if / how our "WCO" is progressing (or regressing?), and the usage of Hillis vs. Hardesty in particular. While I'm at it - might as well do a poll...
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
102 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Titans had drives of 6 plays 60 yards, 1 play 80 yards and 4 plays 78 yards all for TD’s. They took a combined 4 minutes 42 seconds.
The Browns went down the field one time against a soft defense allowing the underneath pass and it took 15 plays and 6 minutes to go the 69 yards. And the Titans weren’t even bothered by the 7 points they gave up because it ate almost half a quarter up.
They were giving us the underneath stuff all the way down the field. They were more than happy to let us work the middle of the field a few yards off the LOS. If they played like they had the rest of the game, we probably wouldn’t have even scored.
"It is unlikely that anyone has ever read Nietzsche or Derrida and has been inspired to open a soup kitchen"
Listening to Colt last night he admitted he was often confused by Tennessee’s defense and what they were doing. He admitted he’s still learning to read pro defenses and I appreciated that honesty and expect him to continue to improve. That said I’m a little concerned that he still doesn’t have the velocity to get the ball to the receiver in stride before the defender is all over them. I think this is a combination of trust, experience and physical tools, all of which can be improved. I also think his pass prtoection has been pretty poor, partly because he needs to make adjustments, partly because he holds the ball too long and partly because our line is not full strength.
Overall I think this can and will be all fixed in time. The GB offense didn’t just become a machine overnight, it took several years. Some Browns fans expect colt and co. To operate like that after 4 games. I think Colt needs to be given the time to effectively read pro defenses and get on the same page with his receivers. I think a couple of the ints have been because he threw one place and expected the receiver to be in another. This is just practice and experience.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if Colt will be more like Rogers or more like Frye. I can see parts of both right now. In the end, we lost bad ro a damn good team. So did the ravens. Very few teams win every game or never get blown out unless they’re top tier. We blew out the Pats last year and they have a decade more experience at key positions. All in all, there are issues with the offense, but I’m not so worried about them. They’re completely fixable with more experience from the players and the coaches. I like they’re all sort of growing up together but they’re not orphans, they have papa holmgren to help if needed. There’s no doubt in my mind this team is getting set up for the long haul so patience is a must. The steelers and ravens are old and getting older. Their time is winding down soon. We’re definitely on the rise. If the Cleveland fans can stop over-reacting to every little gaff (I’m as guilty as anyone) we will be set up for the next decade.
As always, expect great thib.
by HenryDawg on Oct 4, 2011 11:24 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 14 recs
Much like everyone else, based on the recs, I love the way you worded this.
By the time the alcohol and general frustration sets in on Sunday nights, things obviously get a little hectic. (But still fun! :) I think people looking to constructively criticize a point of view without getting pummeled immediately after (though, doing the pummeling can have its joys), should take note of this.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
Uh boy do I know that feeling. I was the worst last year when I would be absolutely blitzed by the time we just blew yet another 4th quarter lead. Then there’s never a Steeler fan around to punch when you need one so you end up blowing all your steam off on DBN. It’s nice people around here usually get that that’s all it is and by the next day its mostly all history. I’m a little more rational this year because I’ve pretty much quit drinking except for once in awhile and I try to especially not drink during games (this last Sunday it was tough not making a liquor store run in the 4th, I could have used my usual liter of Absolut).
by HenryDawg on Oct 4, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec.
The reality is that a rookie head coach, plus an almost rookie QB, plus an offense most of whom have never played in said rookie head coaches’ offensive system, means there will absolutely be growing pains.
QBs in particular take years to peak. Colt did not land in a situation that could “gift” him a lot of wins like Rothlesberger, Sanchez, or Flacco. He doesn’t have a WR like AJ Green that can fight and grab foor poorly thrown balls. The whole team needs to grow up together, pretty much.
The Browns are currently ass over elbows in a ground up reconstruction project. It’s not really going to look pretty for a while.
Thanks, sitting in the waiting room at the docs. It was done on a Blackberry Bold, which has the worst keypad ever. I really can’t wait until my company gets iPhones
Lol iPhones. You set the bar pretty high there buddy.
In Golan we trust.
by SpecialBrownie on Oct 6, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I chose other in the poll because I don’t know what our exact problem is.
I do know a few problems though. (1) The ‘bend but don’t break’ theory on defense hasn’t been working too well. Our defense has broken a few times (80 yd TD, 25 yd run…). I think this could be due to the fact that we are a young team and or the fact that our defensive play calling has been suspect at times. (2) Our QB, OL, WRs and RBs have poor chemistry. This again could be due to a young team, short offseason, and new system. I think our play calling on offense has been fine (just my opinion).
The truth is we are still rebuilding, even though we are so tired of the process we like to deny it. Am I the only one that gets the feeling that the FO is treating this season like an extended pre-season just to evaluate where we are as a team and what we are lacking to become a winning team?
I see it as exactly that. Holmgrem is an experienced leader. he surrounded the team with assistants and coaches with years of experiences, and set in place a rookie head coach to learn from them. he set the team up to be a future threat and a lasting one.
Heckert drafts are the sign of what is to come. he drafts smart. he is not afraid to take risks, as he did in hardesty and little (Hardesty considered to be injured prone, and little with character issues and lack of experience due to that). Both have worked out for us so far, and everyone else came together. And each year, new, younger players are added to refresh the team.
With McCoy being practically a rookie, along with inexperienced (i consider robiskie and massoqa inexperienced due to their lack of quality quarterbacks and coaching) wide receivers, young OL, and then on defense with the entire line in being young, and some lack of depth at DB, it really is a training year for the browns. I believe they already decided that these are their players, and using this year to submerge them into the league. Its like how my Basketball coach saw it; he had freshman and sophomores dress for varsity, practice with the varsity, and even to summer leagues with them. he didn’t expect us to play great, or even do good in the games, but the experience and the whippings we took, made us better.
that is what i believe holmgrom is doing, using the harshness of what a real football game is like, to create a tough, talented team. He is grooming Shurmer, like his protoge, or his padawan. He setting the browns up for a long time.
by youngergenerationbrownsfan on Oct 4, 2011 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Both have worked out for us so far
way early
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
The truth is we are still rebuilding
in reality, we’re just starting another rebuilding effort.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
IMO this game shows progress in the offfense. Compared to our inability to move the chains with CIN and MIA it showed we can move the ball. The next step is scoring. This was a step back defensively. Lack of pass rush and tackling was atrocious and lazy.
My question, was the TD to Watson an audible? They lined up and then the formation changed which allowed Watson to score easily. Was that play design or did Colt see something and change the formation?
I think what you saw was an over exaggeration of us moving the ball due to the fact that McCoy threw it 61 times. So, while it seems we moved it more, it’s probably just an inflated observation.
Pittsburgh is just jealous. We got Cudi and they have Wiz.
by SpecialBrownie on Oct 4, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it was inflated. The attempts and yardage are what they are. If you want to say the the defense was soft. I can agree with that. We have to convert the yardage into scores.
by SBP on Oct 4, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not saying the numbers aren’t there, what I’m saying is, i that if the offense threw as much as they did against Miami or Cincy, a lot wouldn’t have changed. I mean, he had to throw 61 TIMES to even get to 350 yards.
Pittsburgh is just jealous. We got Cudi and they have Wiz.
by SpecialBrownie on Oct 4, 2011 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s hardly efficient, but throwing for 350 means you are getting first downs and moving the chains, which is getting the job done. The fact that we had that many plays on offense means we were doing something right.
Turning those yards and drives into TDs is another story.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The fact that we had that many plays on offense means we were doing something right.
like giving up touchdowns to the other team?
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the part that we aren’t doing right. Also, the not scoring.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
They are two fairly important things to not be doing right.
I'm entitled to my opinion. Especially if I'm wrong.
I voted “other” because I think that when it comes down to it, we just don’t have the pieces we need yet. We don’t have a threat in the passing game, we have an old and slow CB, we have a backup playing safety, we have an old and slow guy playing OLB… Add to that we have a rookie HC and a brand new offensive and defensive scheme. There are things that will need to change from game to game- we need to execute better, work on the fundamentals, discipline, etc. Those are week-to-week things. But (as much as it pains this optimist to say it) I think we have some issues that will have to be addressed over time, and we probably won’t look any better than mediocre until those things get taken care of.
… But in the meantime, “mediocre” is a shitload better than what we have been :)
There are a couple of problems I saw with the offense:
No big play threat. It sounds cliche, but we don’t have anyone who scares the defense right now. Combine that with McCoy’s dropoff in accuracy when he has to throw downfield, and we don’t really scare any defense about giving up the big play. We haven’t attacked the deep seams the way we need to.
No timing. You might have heard Rich Gannon talk about this Sunday, and while he was incorrect about some things he was right about this: Colt doesn’t trust his receivers to be in the right place. They are running the man-to-man version of routes against zone and vice versa. This leads to a lot of hitch steps, pump fakes, and holding on to the ball because in our offense you MUST throw during the split second the WR is getting separation. That leads to pressure, throwaways, incompletions, interceptions and sacks.
Getting a good presnap read. The best QBs in the league alternate between quick-snapping the defense/catching them out of position and getting them to show their hand by using a hard count or cadence. This allows them to get a feel for the coverage, and to adjust protections/hots BEFORE the snap. Colt isn’t doing it. Sometimes he’s going to (what I would think is) the wrong side with his read because he is confused by the coverage.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Oh yeah, and as I mentioned before, getting into the end zone. Too many yards for that little scores.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
So I have to know what you thought about the 4th&1 pitch to Smith. Some of us like it and called it creative, or aggressive, others called for the play to be burned out of the playbook.
I really don’t really think... - Tom Heckert
by North Coast Flea on Oct 4, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it should stay in the playbook, I just think on 4th and 1 you gotta get the ball to Hillis headed downhill or QB sneak it. That’s “f*&^ you, we’re running the ball” time, especially with the kind of talent we have at LT and C. I think in this division you have to have a “f*&$ you, we’re running the ball” sort of “gear” that you can shift in to a couple of times per game, even if we will throw 60 times per game. Who knows, maybe Mack not being at 100% contributed to the call, in which case I don’t blame them because our guard play is terrible right now.
I don’t like the context we ran it in, but I like the play.
We’ve been running those split backs FB dive plays on 3rd/4th and short where we fake the pitch. Shurmur is basically running the counter to that, knowing that the opposing team had seen us fake the pitch but never actually run the pitch play. If you never make them respect the pitch, the dive play isn’t going to keep working, so you have to run it at some point, and I like the fact that Shurmur is running these kinds of plays early in the season (unlike Mangini with the fake Cribbs reverse).
The problem, I think, is that in the recent past we’ve been at the top of the NFL in terms of short-yardage and you get away from that attitude like I said earlier. But another thing I didn’t like about that particular play was that it was Armond Smith running it. When he comes into the game in a situation where it’s usually Hillis or Hardesty, the defense should know something’s up (e.g. the little fast guy is going to get it wide instead of the big guy getting it up the middle).
So I think on 3rd and 1 when you know you could go for it on 4th, run the toss. On 4th and 1, block the DL and let Peyton drag anyone else forward for a yard.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
agreed. i don’t mind having the play in the arsenal, but running it there with that personnel was almost criminal.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I can’t really get behind the complaining on this one; we’ve been stopped a few times already in the 3rd and short situations, and if he keeps with the !$#@ you, were running it" attitude and keeps getting stuffed, people will be just as likely to spazz.
Not to be an apologist, but our line play hasn’t been getting it done in short yardage situations, so he tried to scheme around it. The whole defense flowed to the left with Hillis, but one defender stayed back and managed to make a very tough open field tackle. That’s just good defense (and a reason they are ranked #1 in the league right now) I dont mind the call at all.
"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"
by Gradysmanldy on Oct 6, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
i just couldn’t disagree with this any more vigorously.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 6, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
You say what I have been wanting to about Colt in the best way. Im interested in your take on some things Ive been thinking.
- The no big play threat- is this because we dont throw down field ever, because the receivers aren’t open, Colt can’t “throw the receivers open”/put the ball where they only can catch it or something different/ a combo of these. In reality, in the NFL you dont get wide open receivers down field more then once, if that. I think we had MoMass in Cincy, Cribbs against Miami as examples of us getting that guy wide open down field and for MoMass making a catch that set up a score, and Cribbs just missing a huge play.
Im not convinced that its our WR group, or at least their talents. Maybe they do not have enough football IQ or understand the offense well enough, which would be a different story. But between MoMass, Cribbs, Little, Moore, Watson we have receiving talent.
Im not trying to jump the gun on Colt, but are these things fixable? What are some baby steps to watch to see if he’s picking them up? How long do we go with him if there are no corrections? Again, not trying to jump the gun, but part of the WCO is taking shots downfield, and of course timing. If we dont have a guy that can do that then we need to find one.
[As a side, IMO our O looked more like the inept O of yesteryear then compared to preseason football.]
It’s a combo.
I think outside of Watson, the targets don’t really have a “feel” for the position and are thinking rather than playing at this point. It’s a new offense, a new way of doing things, and all our receivers are relatively inexperienced.
A lot of the bad things are “fixable” but that doesn’t guarantee they get fixed.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Both downfield throws he’s made thus far this season (the Jump ball to Cribbs and the back shoulder strike to Masso on the 1 yd line) had plenty of zip and were thrown where only his man can get them.
Colt is absolutely capable of making that throw, when he sees the coverage properly. Combination of youth and not having the option as frequently as other teams with a deep threat.
More Little, Massoquoi, and Cribbs please. When they get single covered down field, allow them to beat the defender. Big, strong WR.
"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"
by Gradysmanldy on Oct 6, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
But when I look back at the numbers I still find it hard to understand how / why we lost this game so badly.
I think the problem with this (what you’re saying in this specific statement quoted) is that you’re only looking at the stats. If you rewatch the whole game, as torturous as that might be, I think you might get a better I idea of why we lost rather than just looking back at stats.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
It’s pretty easy to find in the stats: Yards per play, defensive scores, and red zone attempts/TDs.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Good point, but those stats seem conveniently left out of the intro.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
Well, after the stats I made it pretty clear about the yards per play (the “big plays” segment) as well as the defensive score (3rd Qtr – Colt McCoy throws a terrible interception, returned for 97 yard TD).
I guess I was really just trying to make a contrast and generate discussion points rather than present a thorough analysis (re – my final statement about wanting to hear some more dispassionate discussion, etc.).
It seems to me the elephant in the room – and the thing that I’m still don’t fully understand is what I’ll call the “yard after” factor. So many completions by the Browns and so scant YAC – in contrast to the Titans and their two 23 yard pass plays – each with huge YAC.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I was really just trying to make a contrast and generate discussion points rather than present a thorough analysis (re – my final statement about wanting to hear some more dispassionate discussion, etc.).
I get that. The intro (part before “the jump”) stats just seemed really selective. Not a big deal, but, as Rufio mentions, including something like yards per attempt gives a much more clear picture of the game. Sort of cancels out the “But when I look at the numbers” I think.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
Just an FYI, before Chris promoted it to the front page I didn’t have the “jump” at all – he inserted it right after the stats (i.e. I think that might skew the perception you think I was trying to convey…)
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
(obviously, I didn’t realize he was going to put it on the front page…)
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, ok. Still, yards per attempt is a pretty important number, that when looking back on, might have shown the lack of big plays. That’s all I’m getting at here, with the second sentence. Again, it’s not a major criticism, I just haven’t been completely on-board with the sentiment about “but we had such good numbers” that I’ve heard from others off-site too. I do agree with your latter points, about the complete lack of big plays last week.
If it’s become a nitpicky semantics thing, I apologize. Not what I was intending.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
No problem. Point taken on the stats stuff – I know the ones I listed are not a good representation of the way the game played out. But I guess that was part of the point of the article… i.e. to point out the stark contrast between those numbers and what really happened on the field.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
i.e. to point out the stark contrast between those numbers and what really happened on the field.
In which case, we actually agree, but got to it in a really strange roundabout way.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
The amazing thing is, everyone on DBN agrees on everything – we just haven’t hashed out the arguments enough yet to circle back and realize it.
Probably just as well though – the thread would be a mile long.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And if we ever reached that conclusion, we’d have nothing left to talk about.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
True – we’d just have to resort to OT threads going forward. Might as well stick to our disagreements so we can keep talking football.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 4, 2011 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
If I don’t red this, I will never forgive myself.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
It is still odd that we had 350 yards passing, only one turnover, those 3rd down numbers, and managed only one offensive TD. That is, it is odd to have had so much success moving the ball and the chains and not much success at all scoring.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Valid point. I think the massive problem there is a clear lack offensive efficiency.
I think this happened with the Dolphins vs. the Colts a few years back. In that case, it was a close final score, but similar stat wise. The same difference maker being big plays.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
I know it’s not ideal, but I still think we were efficient enough.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I guess that would depend on what we feel is “enough.” Personally, I’d say it’s a game-by-game basis, with “enough” being the amount that can win you the game. (It even has the potential to change during the game, like being down 31-6.)
Under those criteria, vs. that Titans team, not even close to “enough.” Unfortunately, we’re not facing the likes of the 2 and 10 anymore.
"I want my unwarranted optimism back." -Dilbert
Efficient enough means being able to move the ball and the chains. We did that. We got first downs.
The one area where we weren’t efficient enough was the red zone. Gotta stop kicking field goals, and obviously not throwing pick 6s helps.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
were we even really in the red zone that much? it didn’t seem like we even had many shots at the end zone, which is crazy given that we had so many yards. dawson’s fg’s were 48 and 51!
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Not the red zone, true. But still the area of the field where we need to get TDs. The new red zone, if you will. If we can turn one of those into TDs and turn the pick-6 into another, it’s a tie ballgame.
Honestly, I don’t know what the answer is as to why we couldn’t score once we got near the opponent’s 30. But making sure we are getting more TDs than FGs and not throwing 97 yard TDs the other way are important for us if we think we are winning any more games.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That pick six absolutely doomed us.
We were moving the ball. We had sustained a solid 7 play 53 yard drive starting from our own 18 driving it deep into Titans territory. Colt had completed four passes for 47 yards. It was first and ten on their 29 yard line. If we score a TD the momentum is ours and its a different game with the score 24-13 and time left in the 3rd quarter. Instead, Colt gave the game to them with one bad throw.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 6, 2011 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
3 SOLID drives, good scoring position, and essentially -1 pts. (2 FG and a pick 6) Like you said, THAT’s the biggest difference in the game.
"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"
by Gradysmanldy on Oct 6, 2011 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Honestly I don’t know what he saw there. Obviously he can’t do that kind of thing for us to be able to compete, but it was pretty out of character. His other INTs this year haven’t been too bad. I’d almost like to see him take this week to work on chemistry with his guys and then take a few more risks.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think part of the lack of ability to punch it in stems from big play ability. Its a lot harder to punch it in with such a tiny field to work with in the RZ and you often have to rely on jump balls and bigger weapons to come through. The problem with no big play threats is you have to be efficient and methodical all the way down the field and its hard to be both in the RZ
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Obviously it’s great to never get in the red zone because you’ve already scored from behind it, but that’s not a long-term winning strategy. Every team will find itself needing a yard or two, and the good teams get that yard or two.
If you are a pass-first team, you can use that “bigger weapon” and throw him a fade/fade stop or a slant. We’ve tried that to Moore and it hasn’t worked well so far. You can just get really good at a small amount of pass plays (4ish) and have an idea of what to do against any look and use them down near the endzone. We have kind of tried this too.
Or you can just line up and decide that “down here, we’re a running team”.
You don’t need to be “methodical” or efficient in the yards per play sense. All you need is a few key yards.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Unfortunately the browns have a hard time even getting to the RZ, or within the 10 yard line. I feel like the majority of TDs are 20-25 yard passes. When the field shrinks enough we just dont have the timing necessary to hit some key plays.
That’s what I am saying: don’t require timing or good spacing when the field shrinks. Just line up and run the damn ball.
When Shurmur gets down there near the red zone, he likes to go for the endzone. That’s not an indictment of our offense, the 20-25 yard passes are a good thing.
We had a good enough time moving the ball on Sunday with 25 first downs and all of those yards, we just need to turn them into points.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I think this will look better over the course of the season. Browns showed flashes of competence in the pre-season, just haven’t put this together yet. Moore, Watson, and Little are all big targets, and last year (with most of the same players) Hillis was a beast in the RZ…..this feels like a coverage reading/timing issue more than a lack of playmakers.
"Mixed emotions. Rather see him hit PEDroia [with that pitch]. I don’t care if he is in the dugout"
by Gradysmanldy on Oct 6, 2011 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
you can survive on just key plays in key situations and don’t have to be methodical, but it is extremely hard to execute a long scoring drive without a big play or two. Its almost like we are always playing a cover 2 defense that is effectively taking away the deep ball
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Cover 2 should have more deep seams than a lot of defenses.
It might be easier to score if you get one big play, but the choice isn’t between one guaranteed big play and trying to string a bunch of small plays together.
If you don’t complete enough of either type of pass, you will fail to score. Sure it would be great to just magically get better at throwing deep, but we just aren’t good at it right now. We take shots downfield, we just can’t complete them. YPA accounts for all of this.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I have no problem with doing what we can do, I think you misunderstand me a bit. I am merely saying that moving the chains with shorter yardage passing plays gives you more opportunities to fail. The success rate of short passes is greater, but if you aren’t getting 15-20 yards on plays, you have to get more first downs which can mean more 3rd down situations.
And I only used cover 2 as an example because its a defense thats known to focus on a “bend but don’t break” strategy in that it prevents the huge play but you can be effective if you have an efficient short-mid passing game.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I am merely saying that moving the chains with shorter yardage passing plays gives you more opportunities to fail.
This is not true. If you are 1/8 on 20 yard passes, you are 2.5YPA and one first down. If you are 4/8 on 5 yard passes, you are 2.5YPA and you have two first downs. Either way, you are just plain bad.
Obviously if you can be a big play offense and also be consistent, then hell yeah, that’s better. But going for big plays doesn’t just magically result in less 3rd downs or completions. If you are incomplete going deep twice, that’s a third down. Connecting on that big play skips 3rd down, but that requires simply being a better offense (going 2/2 on 5 yard passes also skips that 3rd down).
Throwing short doesn’t mean more 3rd down situations, it means better 3rd down situations and an increased likelihood that you will convert them. If you never get a 50 yard pass play but you get 4 yards a play, you’re getting to 3rd and 2.
It is true that a big play offense is better for a team who is horrible at scoring the ball, but we shouldn’t be that bad. 3 and outs all day with one big play for a TD is 7 points, but 3 and outs all day while getting to 4th and 1 a lot is 0 points.
Cover-2 floods the underneath zones with 5 defenders, while leaving only 2 guys to cover the deeps. It’s weaker deep and stronger underneath than C3 or QQH or many other zones. Now if we are talking a scheme that runs C2 on every down, doesn’t play man coverage, and doesn’t like to blitz, that’s something else altogether.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
i have the solution: let’s sign usain bolt and make him a wr.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 6, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t help but wonder if that guy can catch.
Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
by burntorangeandbrown on Oct 6, 2011 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Alshon Blackmon.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I just watched the 30-minute replay on Sunday Ticket. It flies by pretty quick, which may have skewed my perception, but a few things jumped out at me.
- I like Ward in run support, but not so much in coverage.
- I only saw one drop by Hardesty that was inexcusable. The rest were very poor throws (under a lot of pressure) by McCoy and in at least one instance a catch would have resulted in lost yards.
- McCoy’s chemistry with Cribbs and Hillis looked good in that he seemed to be getting the ball to them on time. Probably with Little too, but the timing on his catches didn’t jump out as much to me.
- On a couple of plays I saw Pashos and at least one other OL seem to just give up on their blocks.
- While our pass rush wasn’t great, I saw at least two times where obvious holds were not called and the plays resulted in TN 1st downs.
Maybe it was just the speed of that replay, but the biggest problem for the Browns seemed to be tackling. The offense definitely lacked consistency, but a large part of that seemed to be the result of a really good TN defense. It looks like the offense just needs a little tweaking rather than an overhaul.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
Ward completely blew that coverage in the endzone. I don’t know that it was he couldn’t cover the guy so much as he just made a mistake and couldn’t make up for it. Let me know if you have other examples of Ward not covering very well.
Also I disagree, I thought all 4 of Hardesty’s drops are inexcusable. They were bad.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t recall at what point it was in the game since the whole thing only lasted 30 minutes, but there was another play toward the middle of the field where it looked like he was way out of position.
On the Hardesty drops, the one where he was wide open in the middle and turned upfield before making the catch was the inexcusable one for me. The other three were thrown down near his feet (it seemed) and on one of them he could only have caught it if he dive for it – in which case he would have caught it at the LoS. I’m willing to believe that I could be wrong about those other three, but would like to know what you see after you have gone back and reviewed the game (assuming you haven’t already).
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
While our pass rush wasn’t great, I saw at least two times where obvious holds were not called and the plays resulted in TN 1st downs.
Was one of these on the 57 yard pass play? I remember possibly Rubin coming through the middle of the line and it looked like the LG was all over him. I might have the wrong play but I have a feeling it was on a longer pass play.
It may have been, but hard to say at this point. I felt lucky to notice anything in that rapid-fire condensed replay. (And I’m gonna keep blaming that for every point that I failed to notice or was just wrong about.)
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
Things happen extremely fast on the field in the NFL. You are lucky if you can catch the big things the first time around.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I had to at least watch the replay before I saw it. Usually that receiver has to at least act like he isn’t blatantly setting a pick to avoid that call, but it’s a common practice and it’s been a part of the Run-N-Shoot that’s stuck around in the NFL.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Didn’t that play go for a TD? Aren’t all TDs reviewed?
by chitown browns fan on Oct 5, 2011 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions
that play did not go for a td, and i don’t think you can challenge that (a pick) anyway.
by DontCallMeJoey on Oct 5, 2011 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
As frustrating as it may seem, I believe that pick happened in the first 5 yards and therefore was legal.
Uhh, nope. Sorry:
It is pass interference by either team when any act by a player more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible receiver’s opportunity to catch the ball…
…Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched.
Acts that are pass interference include but are not limited to:..(e) Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him, without playing the ball.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by burntorangeandbrown on 




















