The State of Confusion at the End of the First Half
I hope everyone enjoyed their holiday weekend. One of the controversial sequences the Cleveland Browns had this past weekend came at the end of the first half. With just over a minute to go, Greg Little did a great job to break several tackles and get the Browns into a 2nd-and-1 situation at the 8-yard line instead of a 2nd-and-14 situation. The Browns wisely burned their final timeout, in my opinion, because after Little's great effort after the catch, it would've taken awhile to gather everyone together up to the line of scrimmage.
The Browns wanted a fresh set of downs, and they got it by running Peyton Hillis up the middle for a gain of three yards. After that, with the clock running, the Browns had two options: clock the ball to discuss the next play, or run the next play. With how quickly they got up to the line, it seemed probable that with the previous time out, they had already called two plays: the run, and then an ensuing pass play. Again, there was nothing wrong with this. The next snap came on first down with about 0:35 seconds left at the five-yard line. As long as you don't stay in the field of play or take a sack, you should be fine.
The pass went to Evan Moore in the flat near the sidelines at about the 3-yard line. As soon as Moore turned around, he was met by a defender. Moore is not known as a powerful guy, so I didn't expect him to drive forward into the end zone. Moore was driven back about a yard and a half as he fought his way to the sidelines. He got to the sidelines, but then the referee ruled for the clock to keep running. By rule, the official can rule that if a player's forward progress ended in bounds, the clock can keep going. It's basically a reward for the defender who prevented forward progress; they don't want to take that reward away just because the offensive player got out of bounds backwards.
The issue is this: the play called anticipated that Moore would get out of bounds. On top of that, I think some players thought the clock had stopped. Instead, it kept rolling, and the confusion ensued. Head coach Pat Shurmur confirms what the original plan was:
"We called two plays -- one to get us the first down and one to either throw it into the end zone or to the sideline and get out of bounds; that was the design," Shurmur said. "From there, we wanted to make sure we got the clock stopped on the second down play. Evan caught the ball on the sideline, did not get out of bounds, so the clock was still running. Then, what we wanted to do was get the clock stopped. Get the clock stopped and then, be able to regroup in the huddle, maybe have one play at the end zone. If we don’t, kick the field goal. That’s what we wanted to get done."
If the Browns had clocked it, they still would've had either two shots at the end zone, or one shot and then a field goal attempt. Wallace decided to audible Shurmur's call to clock the ball, hoping he would catch the Ravens' defense off guard.
"I knew we had no timeouts left," Wallace said of the run call. "It was very loud in that end. It was bad communication on my behalf. I heard Pat (Shurmur) yelling, ‘Clock, clock, clock,’ but I wasn’t sure everyone was on the same page, and that’s my job. It’s not the head coach’s fault. I called 66T, a running play, and it didn’t work. It was a tough situation, but I should have handled it better."
I don't think you can blame anyone else in that situation but Wallace. Maybe you catch them off guard with a run play from the one yard line, but not from three yards out. With the 11 players on the field though, the quarterback is the one who dictates the call. Even if the other 10 offensive players were thinking, "what the hell?", they have to roll with it. When Hillis didn't get in, the dumbfounded look on their faces was probably in response to the play call (made by Wallace). I don't think you can really blame Shurmur in that situation, as frustrating as the sequence was.
122 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The only thing that was, was inexcusable. A run with so little time? At least pass it! When my mother realizes it was a bad call you know it was.
by macdowellm03 on Dec 26, 2011 12:49 PM EST via Android app reply actions
Its frustrating how that situation was squandered but at least it isn’t Shurmur’s fault. It is also frustrating to use the sb app to comment on a droid.
by BornAKardiacKid on Dec 26, 2011 1:05 PM EST via Android app reply actions
But sir…no one worries about upsetting a droid…
by jonnyphoenix on Dec 26, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Time management and play calling was horrible this game. Take away this last play of the first half- what about all the timeouts that were just pizzed away for no reason? Why do you think it was critical to get out of bounds – pizzed away time outs. Second half – same story. Here is a coach that has chosen FG and punt over 3rd and 1 all year – and we go for a ridiculous 4th and 5 in minus territory while the D was stoning Baltimore. Why? Blew all our TOs I guess. And what a nice play call of the 2 yard pass on 4th and 5 – lovely.
Change isn't good or bad it just "is". Don Draper of Madmen
I was definitely not happy with the way the TOs were chewed up and spat out. Kinda glad to hear that the goal line SNAFU was on Wallace instead of Shurmur since the latter is the one most likely to br here next year.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
I have the best wife - ever.
what about all the timeouts that were just pizzed away for no reason? Why do you think it was critical to get out of bounds
We wasted timeouts because Seneca Wallace was unable to figure out what was going on at the LOS. We had plenty of time, we were all lined up, and Wallace called TO’s.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 26, 2011 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
I haven’t read or heard any of the post game pressers, but did anyone address calling the pass on third and inches instead of handing off to Hillis? Just wondering if that was also Wallace changing the play. Part of me says, if you know Hillis is working but you still want more info on the WRs as you head into the off season, then call the pass. But at the time I was all anger and disgust.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
— Winston S. Churchill
I have the best wife - ever.
I don’t mind the playcall there, we’ve been pretty successful with that play on 3rd and short. We’d also run like 4 times in a row, and if the ravens don’t believe you are going to pass on 3rd and short, good luck running against Ngata, Cody, Ray Lewis, etc.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I disagree with a lot of Shurmur’s play calling, but I knew he wouldn’t call a run from the 3 with the clock running and no time outs. Seneca Wallace has been around for a while, and you would think that he would be a little smarter than that. But that’s basically how the Browns’ entire season has gone, one missed opportunity after another. Here’s hoping they get some more talent on offense by next season.
I never really liked wallace as a back up, and now that evwryone is calling for Luck or RG3 they will want to keep McCoy as the back up.
by lightninmcqueen on Dec 26, 2011 3:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
a few teams right now wishing they had a Wallace as their backup
I’d go a step farther and say there are probably a few teams right now that wouldn’t mind giving him a shot at starting. I’d say Wallace is one of the best backup QBs in the NFL. He’s massively underrated by many bloggers around here IMO.
That was my understanding.
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
Not buying it. I was just thinking today how the Pittsburgh game is going to be Seneca’s last NFL appearance.
I suspect McCoy will be back in time to start for that game. Completely disagree on your statement about Wallace. He definitely has a few more years in him as a backup.
That was my understanding.
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2011 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, you want your backup to be as veteran as possible so they aren’t wide eyed when they get tossed in. I don’t know if Colt can come back yet but I would like to see him finish up.
No way Wallace is done in the NFL. He’ll be a backup next year somewhere, be it Cleveland or elsewhere. I also wouldn’t rule out him being the starter in Cleveland at the start of the 2012 season (i.e. they draft a QB and trade McCoy).
I guess we’ll find out in a couple days whether they’ll start Colt Sunday. So many factors now with “concussion gate” (Shurmur probably on pins and needles with the idea of putting him back in against the Steelers…), Wallace looking pretty good, etc. Also hard to know what the FO is thinking about the QB situation big picture right now. Nothing will surprise me at this point. I’d like to see Colt get one last start though and not have to end his season with the concussion.
That was my understanding.
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 26, 2011 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
I’d definitely agree with “one of the best” backups, I might go further and say “the best”.
You could make a case for VY in Philly, the lad in GB as #1, but not many more.
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
by LondonBrown on Dec 27, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
So Wallace didn’t know what Shurmur meant when he was screaming “Clock”? Wallace needs to know what’s going on.
No, he did but he went against what his coach was saying.
XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.
by SpecialBrownie on Dec 26, 2011 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
I wasn’t sure everyone was on the same page
So he calls a play instead of just saying he’s gunna spike it? What an idiot.
by Brownie's Year on Dec 26, 2011 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Stupid call, stupid play. We know Shurmur isn’t a genius on the offensive (or at least can’t handle a coaching and offensive coordinator position simultaneously), but Wallace is should be smart enough to know how much time is left. Frustrating.
Ohio's premier Russian fan.
At the end of the day we kept our draft position. So no worries here.
by Brownie's Year on Dec 26, 2011 5:23 PM EST up reply actions
OT but walter football has updated their mock and has us taking RG3 and WR kendall wright also from Baylor, not big but would already have chemistry with RB3, good hands, and fast
by lightninmcqueen on Dec 26, 2011 6:07 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I had that idea before walter football.
by macdowellm03 on Dec 26, 2011 7:59 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
why is this?
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I don’t think they think he would fit in our system. For example, Shurmur wouldn’t put McCoy in the shotgun more despite the fact that is where he is more comfortable b/c his system operates better with the QB under C and RG3 has never taken a snap from under C. Granted it is soemthing he could learn to do but I just don’t think the FO has much interest in him for a variety of reasons.
and you listed 1 which isn’t 100% true. Colt has been put in the shotgun and probably put in the shotgun more than other QBs around the league. He didn’t take 100% of his snaps from back there like he did in college, but no one in the NFL does that.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
exactly no one in the NFL takes 100% of their snaps from the shot gun. RG3 has taken every single snap in his life from the shotgun. I don’t think the FO will give him a serious look b/c he doesn’t fit their system and they won’t change their system to fit his skill set.
no one in the NFL takes 100% of their snaps from the shot gun. RG3 has taken every single snap in his life from the shotgun. I don’t think the FO will give him a serious look b/c he doesn’t fit their system
I guess he won’t get drafted then because he has never taken a snap from center. If he doesn’t fit the Browns’ system, he doesn’t fit any system and by your logic, no one will take him if the Browns won’t.
I could be wrong, but I think we probably run more shotgun plays than the average team. A lot of that could be due to 3rd and longs, but still. I always thought the WCO used a bit more from the shotgun.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
RG3 wouldn’t be ideal for the WCO but that O does feature shotgun snaps now. I think Seattle was the last to run a pure Bill Walsh shotgun with 0% shotgun maybe 5 years ago.
RG3 may well have fitted in the Air Coryell stretch stuff that Mangini was running.
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
by LondonBrown on Dec 27, 2011 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
Air Coryell stretch stuff
It would be a serious stretch to call Daboll’s offense “Air Coryell”
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Only in the same sense as we’re playing the same fundamental as Montana/ Craig/ Rice & Rathman.
*breaks down and cries"
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
touche.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Not even that, Chud was the one to evolve his offense from the Coryell offense. Not Daboll.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
yeah, this sounds about right.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
It would be a stretch to call Daboll’s offense an offense.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2011 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
a pure Bill Walsh shotgun with 0% shotgun
I could be wrong about this, but I am pretty sure I saw Bill Walsh run the shotgun several times with Montana. And Seifert definitely employed it.
2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 27, 2011 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve always heard that Walsh hated the Shotgun because the QB had to take his eyes off the field to catch the snap. Could be wrong though.
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2011 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
And “purity” in any offense is a ridiculous concept. If Walsh would have saw something that could have improved his offense—the pistol, let’s say—he would have used it.
Staying true to some Platonic ideal of football just for the hell of it is stupid, and no matter how dumb anyone thinks Shumur is, he’s not that dumb. Any formation that would help us win, he’d use it.
The problem is that we suck and everyone wants to blame someone.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The problem is that we suck and everyone wants to blame someone.
bingo
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
bingo
see: Colt McCoy.
That was my understanding.
by burntorangeandbrown on Dec 28, 2011 9:23 AM EST up reply actions
Just because we want to blame someone doesn’t mean the person doesn’t deserve it.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
One of the things that made the original WCO distinctive was lining up in pro set pretty much all the time. Meant the D couldn’t T-off on your intent; the could do a power run to Craig equally as well as bomb to Rice out of exactly that same formation.
Also back in those days it was deemed impossible to run with any authority out of shotgun sets- something they’ve obviously figured out in the decades since.
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
by LondonBrown on Dec 28, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Every WCO run in the league today runs from different formations than the Walsh offense. But anyone looking to simply duplicate the formations and plays of the Walsh offense and thinking they’ll find success is due for an enormous wake up call. It’s the methodology and the system behind the plays that carry the WCO forward.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
well I think other organizations are more willing to adapt their systems to certain players skill sets more than the Browns. Take John Fox in Denver for example, he completely changed the entire offense and tailored it to Tim Tebow’s skill set. Carolina has tailored their offense to make things easier for Cam Newton. I just don’t think Shurmur and Holmgren are interested in changing what they do to accomodate any particular player.
well I think other organizations are more willing to adapt their systems to certain players skill sets more than the Browns.
this is pure speculation that is based on nothing except maybe your dislike of the FO which you have already expressed.
I don’t have any proof…but RG3 is actually an alien cyborg.
John Fox in Denver for example,
bad example. only time it has ever happened on that scale. Plus, Fox is also on record with saying Tebow would be screwed in a regular offense and the guy literally has no ability to run a pro style so they have to put him in an option offense.
Carolina has adapted their offense, but not to the extent where I would even call it “tailoring” an offense.
don’t think Shurmur and Holmgren are interested in changing what they do to accomodate any particular player.
based on your one example of not putting Colt in the shotgun? Colt=/=RG3. Holmgren liked Colt, but Colt is nowhere near the talent of RG3 and his potential and likelihood of being a good quarterback for them was much lower. Notice how the guys who have offenses adapted/tailored for them are guys taken in the 1st round who have incredible/unique talents? not 3rd round short QBs with limited arm strength? exactly.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
so Holmgren isn’t interested in helping McCOy be succesful b/c he is a third round pick but would be interested in helping RG3 be succesful b/c he would be a top 5 pick? seems like bad strategy in general.
seems like bad strategy in general
really?
Who is more likely for an offensive Coordinator to design his offense around? RG3 or Trent Edwards? Drew Stanton or Cam Newton?
If you seriously say either Edwards or Stanton, I have no idea what the hell you are thinking.
It’s really basic logic
Guys in the 1st round are bigger investments. Guys in the first round have a much more elite set of skills. Guys in the first round are much more likely to succeed and lead you to a super bowl if you put them in the right situation.
Guys in the 3rd round or later are highly unlikely, even in the right situation, to lead you to a SB.
To put it in a betting sense, your chances of getting an elite QB who can lead you to the playoffs (and possibly a SB) is like betting on black in Roulette. The odds of getting that guy in the 3rd round or later? It’s like betting on 00.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
*and it’s not that they won’t be interested, you completely missed the point. Any person who understands talent evaluation is going to be more willing to adapt to a more talented player because it’s more likely to have positive results.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Teams are much more heavily invested in top 5 picks and guys with huge contracts than they are in other players. Those players get more opportunities than other players, rightly or wrongly. The statistics back this up.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
RG3 has taken every single snap in his life from the shotgun.
Really?!? I doubt that. In any event, the last three Rookie QBs to do great in the NFL their first season — Newton, Dalton, and Bradford — both came from spread offenses where they generally took their snaps from the Shotgun. And remember that Holmgren was in love with Bradford.
2010 Official DBN League Fantasy Football Champion
by TheDriveStillHurts on Dec 27, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
This is insane to worry about. There are nuances he would have to learn but learning to crouch down and put your hand under another guy’s ass is hardly the limiting factor in success as an NFL quarterback.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Cam Newton never took a snap from under center.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Dec 28, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Disgusting
First Browns game I turned off at halftime all year. Quite honestly, I think this team has gone backwards from the begining of the season. Hate to say, but I prefer Mangini coaching compared to the Shurmur clown. The Browns this season has lacked discipline and focus on a consistent basis. That’s coaching.
It’s been an up and down (mostly down) season, but how can you say they’ve regressed since week 1?
by Legoman0721 on Dec 26, 2011 11:09 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I’d say losing 5 straight, soon to be 6 is regression.
by EricMetcalf21 on Dec 27, 2011 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
With 4 of them being losses to the perennial AFC North powers, who will both be in the playoffs. We’re playing better now than we did early in the year, but the competition is much harder.
by Legoman0721 on Dec 28, 2011 10:38 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
I think overall we have regressed from last season and have made very little progress from Week 1 to now. It’s incredibly disappointing to see very little progress from the end 2009 when Holmgren took over to now.
I don’t think we have made “very little” progress. We just lost by less than a TD to the Ravens and the spread was 13.5. That doesn’t mean we did well, but people were expecting us to get blown out and the team showed resiliency.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I hear what you are saying but we have covered the spread many of the games we have played the past couple seasons. Both have been miserable to watch.
by EricMetcalf21 on Dec 27, 2011 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
the actual idea of the spread is only relevant to show that this team is battling and playing better than people expect. Even though we have been losing, this team has shown nice resilience recently and hopefully once they have some NFL talent, they can win some games.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Have you watched the defense? How can you keep repeating the same nonsense?
by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 27, 2011 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
Easier schedule, and undoubtedly more talent than Mangini ever had.
Then again losing our entire backfield, starting two walk on RBs, and thinking we could get by without an OC.
I dunno. Sick of losing.
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
by LondonBrown on Dec 27, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Hillis makes a big difference, agreed. Which makes it puzzling to me that we seem keen on letting him walk.
I don’t think that the rumors of contract issues and locker room problems are completely made up. He wouldn’t be the first guy to have fame go to his head. Heckert during his presser last week said something along the lines of they were blown out of proportion but some of it was based on facts.
Yes, then add in Hardesty and and our other reserve RB going down in preseason and we had the two practise squad RBs starting. If Ogbinna hadn’t turned out to be half decent we’d have been even more stuffed (probably not on the win front, but in terms of respectability)
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
by LondonBrown on Dec 28, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Letting Vickers walk left a huge hole in the running game.
by EricMetcalf21 on Dec 27, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Marecic is a damn good lead blocker. The line is what the problem is. Not to mention we had practice squad RBs playing most of the time.
by Brownie's Year on Dec 28, 2011 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
Also, Maceric’s concussion(s?).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
That’s true, but aren’t those two concussions pretty much recent (over the last month)? I could be wrong but I think there was two occurrences. When he was playing the guy made his blocks. And that’s all we can really ask for. To blame Marecic for the running game problem is completely bogus.
by Brownie's Year on Dec 28, 2011 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
so because Vegas thought they would blow us out and we didn’t get blown out that means progress from week 1 to now? I disagree. In week 1 we made too many mistakes and a couple really bad ones and we lost. In week 16 we made too many mistakes and a couple really bad ones and we lost. I realize that is a very general way to look at it but it’s basicaly what happened and basically what has been happening all season. We keep it close but make too man critical mistakes to win consistently and by week 16 those mistakes shoulnd’t still be happening. It’s a complete lack of progress.
first of all, reply fail.
The point is even though we have lost, we have been more competitive against tougher competition.
We played teams with an average record of 7.6-7.4 over the first 8 games, which doesn’t count Indy/miami as winless which they were at the time. The average SoS since is 8-6.
We won more games during the first half, but 2 of those were against winless teams
We got blown out twice in the first 7 games against easier competition and only have gotten blown out once since Houston. Our margin of of defeat over the first 8 games was almost 13 ppg while our margin of defeat since is 6.3.
We are losing on average by less than a TD when before, we are losing by two.
It’s been said before, but the first step to learning how to win consistently is learning to compete.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
sorry about the reply fail, still adjusting to the format.
this year has followed basically the same arc as the 2009 team. Suck reallay bad early on, kind of suck in the middle, then only suck a little at the end. Except in 2009 we actually beat a good team and managed to win meaningless games at the end, in 2011 we haven’t beaten a single good team and probably won’t win a meaningless game at the end.
I am just tired of losing and hearing don’t worry everything is going according to plan from the head honchos Berea. I am sorry if going 4-12 and taking giant strides in the wrong direction was part of the plan, I think we need a new plan.
true enough but the team looked better last year pretty much across the board. Of course we are comparing crap to poop so what’s the difference I guess.
I think this team needs a better mix of veterans and young players. I know that is hard to achieve but I think 4-5 veteran players mixed in here and there could have made a huge difference this year. Especailly at positions like WR, either guard position, DE. I think Tom Heckert did this team a great disservice this year by sitting on the sidelines during free agency. I hope he at least picks up the phone this year.
more than having a team half full of veterans, younger players need to play to develop. We had 4-5 more veterans last year, but about 60% of our players who got significant playing time last year were veteran players who were close to 30 or above.
We had a total of 5 players out of those 18 who got significant playing time who were under 27: how are you going to get a guy like miava to develop if Eric Barton is starting over him and Barton sucks anyways? I would have named other players, but even many of our backups were more veteran players.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I know, that Free Agency and all the expensive contracts has worked out great for Philly.
Who are these super stud free agents he should have signed and have you considered the few that exist might not want to play in Cleveland? T.O. was a free agent too, how did that work out for Cinci last year? Ochocinco? Want some of that action? I’ll pass.
supplementing their draft choices with quality free agents has worked out well in Detroit and I wouldn’t say Detroit is a significantly more desirable location in the NFL than Cleveland. Would I like Kyle Vanden Bosch, Stephen Tulloch or Nate Burleson or any number of free agents performing well in other cities this year. Absolutely.
But they had their core in place when they brought those guys in. So not only were they reinforcing the core with solid players who their coach knew (at least KVB and Tulloch) but they had the pieces for playoff run in place. We brought in some guys too like Brandon Jackson who was hurt and Dmitri Patterson who has played well but we still don’t have the core built. If we add Luck, Griffin or someone like that and start winning 8-9 games a year there will be more FA activity.
this year has followed basically the same arc as the 2009 team.
not at all. you are forgetting how badly we sucked over the first 8 games. Granted, we did play tougher teams than we played in the first half of this year, but we were losing by an average point margin of almost THREE touchdowns (about 20 ppg).
kind of suck in the middle
we REALLY sucked in the middle too. The only game we lost by less than a score in the middle (the middle 6 games) was the game we faced the 2-14 Lions,.
Except in 2009 we actually beat a good team
I wouldn’t call beating a 9-7 team who is on a 4 game skid (2 of the games against teams we beat after them) beating a “good” team. They gave up 27 points twice to teams in the bottom 1/3 in scoring offense and their D was really sucking.
2011 we haven’t beaten a single good team and probably won’t win a meaningless game at the end.
The Seahawks have played about as “good” as the Steelers did that year and at the time, were definitely playing at least on the Level that the Steelers were when we beat them.
I am just tired of losing
no one wants to lose, but to claim the team is going backwards since the beginning of the year doesn’t seem to have anything backing it up.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
would it be fair to say this team is going backwards compared to the 2010 team? Which I would argue showed great progress pretty much everywhere but the win column when compared to the 2009 team. I just feel like we are back in 2009 and that seems like backward movement.
2010 team ended in a complete collapse in every way. Losses to dysfunctional Cinci, Buffalo and getting smashed by the Steelers at home. We our peak with the Pats and got worse as the season went on. They completely gave up.
but wasn’t the 2010 collapse due more to injuries and players wearing down more than anything else? It seems this year the middle of the season was our yearly “injured stretch” and now that most everyone is somewhat healthy we are playing better. I mean Hillis is now the healthiest he has been since week 2-3 and he is running for 100 yds and 4+ YPC against Baltimore. I don’t know, I am more frustrated than anything.
sure, injuries played a factor, but you really think they aren’t playing a factor now? We have 11 guys on the IR, including about 6 starters and 9 key players in rotations. We are down to Jordan Cameron as a backup TE and at one point were down to a practice squad RB. we definitely haven’t had injury problems.
Hillis is healthy now, but our starting QB and 2 of our top 3 TEs are hurt. And we are having to start a FB who we got from the practice squad.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
well we haven’t seen a drastic reduction in the quality of play losing our starting QB and a few other starting players though. Losing Hillis and his productivity clearly hurt us in the middle part of the season but I find it hard to believe that one could construct and argument that losing Owen Marecic or Alex Smith was devastating since we really haven’t missed a beat without those two guys and that is largely the case with most of the guys currently injured.
I don’t think Colt makes some of the bonehead decisions yesterday that definitely hurt the team. I think Colt spikes it in the RZ at the end of the 2nd half.
and that is largely the case with most of the guys currently injured.
It’s really not largely the case with most guys injured. We have definitely missed a beat without Steinbach. We have definitely missed a healthy Ben Watson this season who was banged up even before he went on the IR. You think Brandon Jackson would have been a nice option over Ogbonnaya? Heck yes.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Having Hillis helps a lot, I hope we re-sign him. I understand your frustration but it doesn’t help. You have to try and find some positives because its not going to change anytime soon.
would it be fair to say this team is going backwards compared to the 2010 team?
that’s a different issue and I would say it’s not a comparison that is perfect and in fact is kinda flawed imo.
The 2010 season isn’t just a comparison of one coach to another, but is also a comparison of younger players in a 4-3 (Sheard, Taylor) to veteran guys in a 3-4 who understood the system well (Kenyon Coleman, David Bowens).
We went from one of the oldest teams in the league to one of the youngest through many of the mangini guys we didn’t resign. That difference in experience leads to less dumb mistakes by the players such as the jumping offsides by Phil Taylor.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
*and it is backward movement compared to 2010. Part of that is due to us speeding up the rebuilding process and sometimes you have to take short term steps backwards to take long term steps far forward.
Guys like Abram Elam, Kenyon Coleman, and David Bowens weren’t going to get any better and a D with those guys as starters has a very limited upside in how good it can get.
What we did is replaced those players with younger players (2 rookies in fact) which means taking a step back in the short term while they develop, but in the hope that those players get better than those who reached their peak (and it’s actually fairly likely just judging by early results).
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I understand the upside argument but I don’t think we upgraded things the right way. I mean is Usama Young and upgrade from Abe Elam at S, I don’t know? Are Jaball Sheard and Jayme Mitchell as our primary pass rushers upgrades from Matt Roth and Marcus Benard, long term yes for probably Sheard alone. The LB postiion is essentially unchanged and desperate needs upgrading. I guess I would have just done it differently. Could the defensive line have survived a year without Phil Taylor and addressed the DT position in FA or next years draft? We completely overhauled the defense which really wasn’t in need of an total overhaul as badly as the offense. The defense was clearly further along than the offense in both 2009 and 2010 and Heckert chose to tear that down and rebuild it when it needed some patchwork fixes and chose to not address the crumbling, in shambles offense. So now we have a semi good defense and still have a crumbling offense wtih many of the same needs on both sides of the ball that we had when Heckert took over.
We didn’t just get rid of Benard, he was out of shape and got injured early in the season.
The LB position is definitely not unchanged. We got rid of Barton and Bowens and yes, it needs to be upgraded, but it is already younger because we actually have played guys like Titus Brown and maiava.
We completely overhauled the defense which really wasn’t in need of an total overhaul as badly as the offense
\
There, I disagree with you. Theoretically if we kept Rob Ryan, mangini, and the exact same players on D without adding anyone, we would have gotten worse from last year because of the age factor.
I’d actually say from a pure long term rebuild standpoint, the offense was in better shape because we had solidified LT-C on the line, had young weapons, and had young backups (Colt, Lauvao) compared to guys who have probably hit their peak (Bowens, Shafering)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
but come on are Titus Brown and Kaluka Maiava part of the future starting corp of LBs on defense? I sure hope not.
I am not talking about keeping Rob Ryan I am talking about keeping some of the veterans from the Mangini era and transitioning the defense to a 4-3 in a less drastic fashion that didn’t require a complete overhaul in one offseason. Like I said did we have to draft Phil Taylor or could we have managed to be near last in run defense without him and address another position that was in need of more immediate fixing like having a rush DE to go against LTs or a playmaking WR?
we had young weapons on offense? Outside of Peyton Hillis what young weapons did we have? A converted RB and TE we haven’t used enough all year?
I get what you are saying I just would have done it differently and I think more efficiently. It seems they are rebuilding in a very inefficient manner.
but come on are Titus Brown and Kaluka Maiava part of the future starting corp of LBs on defense? I sure hope not.
Probably not, but they’re solid depth until something better arrives. Can’t do it all in one year.
Like I said did we have to draft Phil Taylor or could we have managed to be near last in run defense without him and address another position that was in need of more immediate fixing like having a rush DE to go against LTs or a playmaking WR?
We did get a rush DE (Sheard) and playmaking WR (Little). I’m sure the Taylor thing had something to do with how they had him rated on their big board. I didn’t like giving up a 3rd round pick to move up, but clearly they had good reason too, they don’t make multi-million dollar decisions based on hunches.
we had young weapons on offense? Outside of Peyton Hillis what young weapons did we have? A converted RB and TE we haven’t used enough all year?
They had to evaluate Colt. I think there was enough at the time to give him a good chance. Pashos’ injury was a big problem. They thought Robiskie was improving. There was reason to think the O would be solid if not spectacularge.
well Sheard doesn’t line up against LTs and Little had made what one big play this year, not exactly what I meant but whatever.
how can you evaluate Colt when they gave him basically nothing to work with?
Little has definitely improved as the year has gone on and most receivers suck in their rookie years. They though Mitchell was a stud. They were wrong. I don’t know if Heckert never saw him run or what. He definitely has the size but unfortunately the wheels to match. He sucks and will be replaced, if nothing else happens Benard could be back or we draft one.
are Titus Brown and Kaluka Maiava part of the future starting corp of LBs on defense?
it’s more likely than Eric Barton suddenly becoming that.
The Rob Ryan thing was merely to limit variables in the hypothetical.
I am talking about keeping some of the veterans from the Mangini era and transitioning the defense to a 4-3 in a less drastic fashion that didn’t require a complete overhaul in one offseason
ok…so if we keep Kenyon Coleman and he is at DT, does he start over Phil Taylor? And if he is a backup, what was the point of keeping him anyways?
Outside of Peyton Hillis what young weapons did we have
Hardesty, momass and robo were in their 2nd years in 2010, we had evan moore. The bigger question was what veterans were at skill positions on offense last year? Ben Watson and that’s about it.
I get what you are saying I just would have done it differently and I think more efficiently. It seems they are rebuilding in a very inefficient manner.
I completely disagree. You are looking at it in the short term and this kind of rebuild looks much uglier in the short term. It however gives the young players more experience quicker and in that way in the true sense of “rebuilding” talent, may be more efficient.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
> We played teams with an average record of 7.6-7.4 over the first 8 games, which doesn’t count Indy/miami as winless which they were at the time. The average SoS since is 8-6.
So we didn’t get the promised easy schedule? Cincinatti’s appearance in the playoffs proves that two walkover games were not. And the NFC/W was tougher than anticipated.
....just need a guy called Byner to play RT...
We definitely didn’t. Some people thought the NFCW wouldn’t turn out 1 team above .500 and it’s guaranteed to turn out 2 (unless the Cardinals and the Seahawks tie). And while the Colts sucked hard, the top 2 teams in that division will have records around what I saw most predictions were (10-6 and 8-8), just different teams.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
When is a game against Cincy a walkover? Anyone who thought that was delusional.
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.
Many of us had those two games marked as easy wins against an unproven rookie QB.
by Brownie's Year on Dec 27, 2011 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t know any game that should be considered an easy win in the last few years. Regardless, the Bengals still had a competent run game and a strong defense.
Mangini apologist by default.
I’m speaking about his innate accuracy, not how well that innate accuracy is translating on the field.

by 





















