An Outsider's Perspective
by taylor21 on Feb 1, 2012 10:14 AM EST
Email
Print
Let me start of by saying I am a redskin fan. Nothing would thrill me more than the browns passing on RG3 and him falling to the redskins at 6 . But I understand that most of you want RG3 for the same reasons most redskins fans do . In my opinion QB should not top your list because in the AFC North you don't win with a quarterback you win with a running game and a good defense. In the NFC East however we have 3 of the top 10 quarterback in our division. I'm not trying to change your opinions just giving the facts as I see them.
let me also say that trading back is way overrated.The browns every year seem to go that direction and I'm always puzzled at why. Depth is important but so is having quality starters and playmakers something neither of us really has . with that being said I have a few questions for you guys
1) what would you want to trade back with the skins at 6?
2) would you be happy with Richardson and Tanehill in the first / or Blackmon and Tanehill?
3) what would you think about bringing in D. McNabb ( this is a strong possibility with your coaching staff)
4) would you offer the colts Colt and the farm to move up for luck ?
5) Is it Colts fault or the lack of talent around him? (for the redskins its all Rex's fault he sucks)
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
414 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
1) if Griffin is available, you couldn’t offer me enough. Otherwise, I don’t know, maybe a second rounder?
2) No running backs in the first. I would be happy with Blackmon, Tannehill does not excite me.
3) not gonna happen.
4) I would, many would not.
5) The answer is both. I think it is mostly on Colt. Good quarterbacks succeed with sub-par talent, and you need look no further than the team picking first overall for your evidence.
I would also add that there is no division you win consistently without a quarterback. Big Ben is very good, Dalton played well, and Flacco has his moments. You need an above average QB to win a super bowl. Winning the division isn’t the goal.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
I agree with all of this^
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Jan 31, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
In my opinion qb should not top your list because in the afc north you dont win with a quaterback you win with a running game and a good defense.
…
Im…just giving the facts as I see them.
…?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
in the afc north you dont win with a quaterback
Yeah, that pretty ridiculous to say. Andy Dalton enters the league and leads the Bengals to 9-7 in his rookie season. The Ravens and Steelers have Flacco and Ben, respectively. You win with a quarterback in the NFL regardless of division. The AFC North is hardly an exception to that rule, in fact, it reinforces it. The only ones that are even debatable are the really bad NFC and AFC West divisions.
by Jon @ DBN on Jan 31, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Take away AJ Green, Jerome Simpson, Jermaine Gresham and Cedric Benson and give Dalton a MoMass and Cribbs at wideout, a oft injured Hillis and Hardesty at halfback and then tell me how good he leads his team, and also just ignore the fact that the Bengals had an above average defense that would constantly put pressure on the QB and was ranked 5th in the NFL with sacks with 45. Not saying the Browns defense sucked or was bad but they did decent
BREAKING NEWS! Apple is releasing a special edition LeBron James iPhone. Problem is it only vibrates b/c it has no RING!...
by siejecy on Jan 31, 2012 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What does any of that have to do with needing a QB to win? Take away Andy Dalton and replace him with a bad QB and they don’t make the playoffs.
by Jon @ DBN on Jan 31, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
if The Redskins offered you 2nd rd pick 2013 1st would you make that trade ???
with RG3 on the board???
No.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 31, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly? Two ones next year and another Sheard this year (only using his name not his position, Rd. 2 n whatnot). And getting Blackmon?
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t. If RG3 is on the board I’d turn my ringer off and run to the podium while trying to hide my sports boner.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Jan 31, 2012 7:39 PM EST up reply actions 12 recs
lol
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
I remember years ago seeing Denny Green smiling his ass of (hiding his boner) when the Cardinals selected M. Leinert. That didn’t pay off to well, and I don’t think RGIII will pay off well. Thats why I’m in the minority here.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
If you don’t try you’ll never succeed. He may bust, but the chance of the payoff is worth the risk. We also won’t be locked into a 7 year $100 mil contract with him.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
RG3 doesn’t strike me as the type of guy who will be hanging out at hot tub parties when he should be studying film.
Thats probably true, he doesnt seem to be a jackwagon that Leinert is. Still, If I’m giving up that much future players for “The Guy”, I would take Luck and not gamble as much on RGIII..
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
the price to go get luck would be way, way, way higher. makes the risk at least as great as rg3
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
If 2 firsts, and a 2nd, will get RG3, then 2 firsts, a 2nd and a conditional 3rd/4th should get buy one more slot.
If the skins are also dealing for the #2, then it’s at least possible that #1 could turn out to be the better bargain.
it’s really not. considering the “sure thing” that luck is presumed to be, the price to move up to get him will be astronomical.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 2:51 AM EST up reply actions
I really doubt it would take as much as 2 firsts and a second to get RG3.
If that’s the case, to get Luck, it will take both firsts, our 2nd, 3rd, probably 4th, and at least a first round pick next year.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I don’t know what it would take to trade up to #2 either. I would hope it wouldn’t take that much. As you know, I’m entirely against the whole idea. I was just guesstimating some of the suggestions I’ve read. Some seem more ridiculous than others.
Regardless, I don’t think it would be relatively, that much more expensive. Am I correct in thinking, your difference in price for trading up from #4 to #1, compared to, #$ to #2 is an additional 1st + a 3rd + a 4th?
Thinking about it now, if the price to trade to #2 is ‘less than’, 2 firsts and a 2nd, the more interested, in trading for Luck, I would be. That’s saying something, for me. Because QB hasn’t been on my list of “priorities for ’12”.
I don’t think it would be relatively, that much more expensive.
I do
is an additional 1st + a 3rd + a 4th?
First of all, if it costs an extra 1st and 2nd to move up to #2, it’s not crazy that moving up 1 more could cost another first. But you can’t look at it that way anyways.
We aren’t trading blindly in a vacuum without any idea of the teams who have the picks. You have to take into account team need, team wants, etc…
The Colts have made it pretty darn clear they want luck bad. The Rams are rumored to want Kalil or Blackmon. If they trade from 2 to 4, they still will get one of those players. If the Colts trade out of #1, not only will they miss out on Luck, but may miss out on RG3.
They won’t want to trade out of the #1 so you are going to have to overpay for the spot.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
First, those aren’t my figures, per say. I put that out there for those that think thats what it will take. To them, i was saying, ’IF thats what it costs to get #2 then IMO, all it should require, is an additional ’13 conditional 4th with the possibilty of becoming a 3rd, to get the #1.
Second, The question I proposed to you was "Does the cost of trading to #1, as compared to trading to #2, from #4, translate to “an additional 3rd, 4th AND an additional future #1,” in your opinion? I was asking because thats what it seemed you were saying and I wanted to verify if I was understanding you correctly. I don’t see where you answered that yet because now you’re saying “(only?) an additional first”? Just tell me the difference in cost between the 2 trade scenarios as you see it. Excluding the Rams and the Colts from the equation.
I’m not so sure, that Irsay doesn’t want to trade. Seems smarter to posture otherwise at this point. There is nothing to lose from bluffing when your the only one holding any cards before the game has even started.
Excluding the Rams and the Colts from the equation.
Well, you really can’t do that. In theory, it should only take maybe an additional 3rd rounder to move up 1 spot, but it won’t. We can talk theoreticals all we want, but they will not happen in a million years because you don’t consider the needs of the teams involved.
If the Colts trade down to #4, they miss out on Luck and have the possibility of missing out on RG3. If the Rams trade from 2 to 4 (as long as 1 and 2 go Luck, RG3 which they will if this happens), they are guaranteed a shot at Kalil or Blackmon.
There is much less risk involved for the Rams. Because they are risking less in terms of getting their guy, their asking price will be less. That’s how it works.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Good. That alone is too expensive, IMO, to move up 2 slots. I fear that if the Browns decide to fill fewer holes this year, there will only be more to fill next year. Then you run the risk of having ‘even more’ holes in ‘14 and beyond, as current contracts expire. Similar actions achieve similar results. At some point, the vicious circle the Browns have been in, must be broken. I’m trusting that Holmgren was brought in to do just that. He has stated numerous times, “we are building this team for the future”. IMO, were still 2 drafts and a run at some top FAs in ’13 away from the future he has in mind.
At some point, the vicious circle the Browns have been in, must be broken.
The vicious circle of trading down and getting depth players instead of getting top 5 talent? I agree, we must stop that.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Nice try. The vicious circle the Browns’ have been in is ‘filling fewer holes than what is required to win more games’. Plugging players in doesn’t mean the hole is filled.
Plugging a franchise QB in will fill many other holes by elevating the players we already have in them.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
The players that need elevated have already been elevated, by McCoy. lol They, the WRs, can’t ‘elevate’ any higher with another rookie QB. We need at least one that elevates himself. Catching ‘everything’ in the process.
So you think Colt McCoy has elevated our WRs as high as they’ll go? That seems highly unlikely. Colt hasn’t shown an ability to stand in the pocket and get the ball where it needs to be when it needs to be there. He isn’t a great QB.
A great QB will make his WRs better, that is fact. I’m guessing Austin Collie, Pierre Garcon, and Wes Welker would agree with me.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
I disagree. A good QB does much more for his wide receivers than a good WR does for his QB.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 5, 2012 11:11 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Besides the fact that they both played quarterback in college, I am really not seeing the comparison to Matt Leinart at all.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 1, 2012 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
They both won heismans?
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Yes, and as I stated in another comment, there bodies of work are at best decent for college. Luck is far and above better.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Yeah, you wouldn’t want to see a 70+% completion percentage in college, nor would you want to see a guy elevate a school like Baylor above a vaunted “spread-killing” defense that has been copied throughout the FBS to the tune of a butt ton of yardage.
RG3 killed it this year. Say what you want about him as a pro prospect, but he was lights out this year.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
great point.
matt leinart was a first round pick and has not been a successful qb in the nfl, so why would we ever pick a first round qb, right?
tom brady was a sixth round pick and he’s an excellent qb in the nfl. let’s go draft a qb in the sixth!
problem: solved.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 3, 2012 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Joey, Joey, Joey… Next time, please actually understand what you read before posting.
I never made the analogy nor did I hint at it. You’ve seemed to make it up in your head. Both QB’s are pretty much one decent season & one really good season wonders. There body of work really isnt there to study. USC has an admittedly stacked team that made even Dirty Sanchez look good. Baylors from a conference thats not really known for its top notch defense.
Thats what I was infering to in my prior statement. Lucks body of work is longer to see and you can plainly see the progression. If i was the GM and was going to give up 2 first rounders, I’d give a little more for the guy who is a more known quality.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
i guess the good news here is that you are completely and utterly making this up and have no idea what you’re talking about. rg3 started 2 years, luck and leinart started 3 … it’s impossible to say that any has a meaningfully longer track record than another. rg3 put up 9100 yards of total offense in 2 seasons. luck and leinart put up about 10,500 each in 3 seasons.
also, rg3 had, by far, the best single season of the 3 qb’s. nice try.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
2 years vs. 3 years. An increase in track record of 50%. That’s not meaningful?
Luck played in a balanced offense, at least for his first 2 seasons. Leinart sucks. I have yet to see how he fits in this conversation. RG3 was slingin’ it in a lopsided offense.
I would agree with RG3 having the best single season, as an individual, of the 3. But as the member of a team, Leinart is the only one with a ’C’ship Ring’.
Luck’s offense is based around the run. It was under Harbaugh and it was this year too.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
And its design as a system can help QBs as much as a spread offense.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
It certainly wouldn’t put the volume stats together like Luck did or a “spread” (to pass) system would do.
Keeping a defense honest always helps a QB, but every good system will keep a defense honest—spread to pass, spread to run, pro-style, wishbone, option, any of them. That is a large part of what a good system does.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
exactly.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
RG3 started over 2 years. He started a good portion of his true freshman season and then got injured 3 games into his sophmore season. He played just as much as the other guys, plus by far the single best season.
I’d call RG3 maybe 2.5 seasons but his track record is still no worse than the others.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Hate to reply twice but this still works into 4 picks in first 2 rounds and 2 ones next year….
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
Not a high enough price if they think Griffin is a franchise QB.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 31, 2012 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
Totally down if they get more.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
If they don’t think he’s the guy I would do that in a heartbeat. Gotta run, Glee’s coming on.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
NO.
I want to trage RGIII to your Redskins, though your offer of a 2nd this year and a 1st next year is low.
Try moving to #2 or #3 and you’ll find the price would be 2012’s 1, 2, 3 & 2013’s 1, 2, 3. My price – 2012’s 1, 2, 3 & 2013’ 1 & 2. Thats where we start at, now where we finish may look different. Depends how creative you can get with players/picks and contract lengths.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
If anything they would do a draft and trade. They have some good players on the Skins don’t they? Redskins #6 and second round plus a couple of their good players.
If the Redskins want to give me Ryan Kerrigan, Jamaal Brown, 1st and 2nd in ‘12 and a first and second in ’13, then I’m game.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
Thats my point, I haven’t drank any of the RGIII koolaid. I would love for two quality players and 3 to 4 picks in exchange for the kid from Baylor.
I would be stoked to be able to trade back twice, the second time one spot to 7, for another 1st, 2nd & 3rd and a 2013 1st & 3rd. Let Blackmon/Martin/ Kalil/Reiff go to the Jags. If I could have 6 draft picks in the first 75 draftees, I’d be shitting my pants.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
You would never get a deal close to that good for either pick.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 2, 2012 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
as long as we’re hanging in fantasy land … sign me up to win the powerball and start dating kate upton.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 3, 2012 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Don’t forget the unicorn, blow, and strippers.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 3, 2012 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
You couldn’t win Joey. Your dead and not a US citizen, so I’d call Dept of Homeland Security (INS) on you. Deportation and a reburial would be all you receive.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
i don’t know how i got to be an illegal immigrant in possession of some dead (“your dead”), but i’m pretty sure the abbreviation for Department of Homeland Security is “DHS” and not “INS”, i have no idea why any deportation authority would bother to deport a dead person, and would they really dig me up to deport me such that i would require a RE-burial?
also, if i’m dead, who is posting this comment?
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 1:06 AM EST up reply actions
also, if i’m dead, who is posting this comment?
Good one, golan.
by emily522 on Feb 4, 2012 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
BTW, thats what we are all in. This site is dreamland, cuz non of us are running this team.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
by J. W. on Feb 3, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you’ve just posited a scenario where the browns trade back two times from the 4th pick to end up at the 7th pick … and in the process acquire at least 6 picks (and depending on how your convoluted post is supposed to read, maybe up to 9 picks) and 2 “quality” players.
that’s not dreamland. that’s meth-town.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yet some people here think we need to give up multiple early picks to move up two spots.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 5, 2012 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
Tampa’s not interested in him. The only reason would be if the ’skins fear someone behind them, may make the Browns an offer for the #4 pick. I for one, hope there is. The potential is there (a #4 vs. a #8 and RG3 vs. Julio Jones) for H,H&S to do a deal that dwarfs last years Atlanta deal, without having to fall back as far in the first.
Take away AJ Green,
Take away Green and Dalton and that is one of the worst teams in the league last year.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
They played major roles yes, but it no doubtedly takes more than a couple rookies to make the playoffs.
oh yeah, it took losing maybe their best player on D in Joseph…
Their D did get better, but a key part of that turnaround is going from 27th to 9th in turnovers (and 23rd to 12th in INTs). The Bengals shot themsleves in the foot over and over in 2010 because of untimely fumbles and INTs by Palmer.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
1. Blackmon and the 6 plus a 2. So if Blackmon is gone…no deal.
2. Blackmon….. I don’t think many, if any, of us want Tannehill.
3. No. no. no….Rather see if Vince Young grew up yet before we got that old turd.
4. Not the whole farm but a nice chunk of real estate.
5. I differ with much of the consensus. A lot of folks think McCoy is a wash. I don’t think he’s had any real coaching yet. The first staff had an issue with him and didn’t give him much positive in the way of confidence then threw him into the fire for lack of options. The second staff had no OC or prep time this last offseason. Couple that with the issues at WR and the games the OL looked terrible (spec. Balt.), and I can see a way through to be willing to give him one last year. No improvement though and he’s gone, especially if we get Blackmon.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 12:35 PM EST reply actions
Should have read Blackmon @ the 6.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
This is the second time I put VY out there….wonder how long before there’s a “rumor” he’s coming because of the Cle/Phi connection. lol.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
It would make for a very interesting camp having VY, Coly and RG3 there.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 8:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
1. Yes, but only if Luck, RG3, and Blackmon are all off the board.
2. No to Richardson. Yes to Blackmon and Tannehill only if RG3 is off the board at 4.
3. I’m not at all interested in McNabb. We need to move forward not back.
4. It would depend on what the “farm” entails. I’d prefer to draft RG3 at 4 over giving up everything and more for Luck.
5. As other have pointed out, it’s a combination of both.
1. Only if you give us your #1 for next year, so if our QB doesnt pan out, we can trade both #1’s and grab Barkley, Jones or that kid for Wash
2. Blackmon, no to richardson or Tannehill
3. No way in hell for McNabb, you being a Redskins fan should know thats absurd. Much rather grab Campbell if anyone
4. Depends on what the farm consist of. Love the idea of Luck, but not willing to trade 5 picks because we need to fill gaps.
5. I think it was more of lack of talent at skilled positions but Colt was not great either
Lol wut? Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco and Big Ben somehow prove to you that you win in the AFC North by running?
Seriously, how do people miss like the 50 year gap from when we had Jim Brown to now? I mean Bradshaw, Sipe, Boomer, Kosar… but no. Because of Jim Brown and running in the 60s, you win in the AFC North by running. Just throw all the other passing crap in between out the window.
XBL - TheRabbit087. Get at me.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 31, 2012 1:10 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Flacco is slightly avove avg. at best. Bradshaw calls Franco Harris daily to thank him for ‘everything’. Sipe had the Pruitts. Boomers career was forgettable. Kosar had Mack, Byner, and Hoard just to name a few.
The weather and field conditions are the same in Cleveland now, as they were in the glory days. It’s not a coincidence that the Browns winning seasons were all supported by a bruising running attack.
IMO, trying to keep up with the Jones, took precedence over playing Cleveland style football and is directly correlated to the return of the Browns. Regardless of what your opinion of Art Modell is, he was devoted to Cleveland for a lot longer than not and he wanted to win even if it meant winning ugly. As good as Bernie was, it was still ugly. With the new ownership came a new approach. The new Browns were welcomed back to the so-called new NFL. Thanks to the success of Brady and Manning, the passing attack has taken priority with younger generations. Problem with that is: The talent pool is, has been and always will be deeper at RB than at QB.
field conditions are the same in Cleveland now, as they were in the glory days.
Not true. They take much better care of the field now.
I also think while you may still be attached to the history, that simply doesn’t work any more. It’s not that people became enamored with Manning and Brady, it’s that the rules of the game changed.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
They may put more effort into taking care of the field during the week, but the fields in Cleveland and Pitt end up the same as always in bad weather games. If the Browns are going to make the playoffs, theyre going to play in bad field conditions.
Everything about the game is based on the History. If not, where does all the information teams use to plan for one another come from?
So, what is your argument exactly? We don’t need a passing game because even though teams with them are the successful ones in the NFL right now, the memory of Jim Brown will compel us beyond them?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 1, 2012 1:41 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
No, Im not arguing that we don’t need a passing game. The pass opens up the run and vice versa. My arguement is ONLY, that the Browns will not win, IN CLEVELAND, late in the season, on a routine basis, without a great backfield.
*I will agree that fining quality RB is a shit ton easier than finding quality QB’s.
*Don’t agree with the nameless ones devotion to the City – he was pissed that they didn’t bribe him enough.
*The running game should be balanced with the passing game.
*During a rainstorm or snowstorm the running game is usually the only real way to go – if your not prepared, just forfeit and go home, you lose.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
During a rainstorm or snowstorm the running game is usually the only real way to go – if your not prepared, just forfeit and go home, you lose.
This isn’t really true, in fact WRs, who know where they are going, can often cause DBs to slip easier.
This is a true statement. But it’s also true that throwing and catching a cold and/or wet ball is significantly more difficult. Throw in some wind and it’s damn near impossible.
Throw in some wind and it’s damn near impossible.
We as Browns fans start to believe this to be true after watching years of Colt/BQ. It can be done, you just need a guy with a good arm.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
It’s been discussed at length on here that the weather effects only a small percentage of games in a season; many seasons it has no effect at all.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Can’t wait for some home games in January!
by HenryDawg on Feb 2, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Anyone else remember Holcomb throwing for a billion yards in the snow against Pittsburgh?
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 8:23 PM EST up reply actions
Tom Brady seems to throw quite well in the snow.
by Legoman0721 on Feb 1, 2012 11:26 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Yes, he does. Tom Brady is one of the best QBs of all time. He’s also very good at recognizing mismatches and doesn’t need to go +15 down field very often, in the snow. And even the Pats rely on the run more in thier bad weather games. Not 100% certain of this but I believe the snow isn’t as wet (on average) in Boston as it is in Cleveland. Temperatures are lower and the air is dryer over there in late december and, more so, in January. It’s more of a powder snow. Even on tv is appears to blow around more easily in the breeze. I can’t be sure because it’s been 20 years, give or take, since I’ve seen a Browns game in January. I’ve been there a few times, in the winter, but didn’t know what the snow was like in the Cleveland area at the time.
So the type of snow in Boston is why the Patriots are better than us? Mother Nature hates the Browns?
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
New England, Green Bay, New York Giants, Philadelphia.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
pittsburgh, also, if you want to count that guy.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Not sure what your saying here, rufio. That those teams win, in cold weather cities, without a solid running game? Is the list of solid RBs, that have contributed to those teams, that short? I can think of a few for each.
They all win by passing the ball in cold weather on pretty bad field conditions.
The offenses are all QB/Pass-first. Hell, Green Bay and Philly rarely run the ball.
They all have RBs that weren’t first round picks, none of them are running-centric offenses, they all have pretty damn good QB play in cold weather outdoor stadiums, and they all have good offenses.
Even the good RBs on those teams are dangerous because of their effectiveness in the passing game—if I am understanding the point you are trying to make through all the extraneous commas. Westbrook and McCoy were/are good because they could catch the ball out of the backfield and neither is “bruising”. Bradshaw is a good pass blocker and can catch too. Mendenhall sucks. Woodhead/Kevin Faulk catch the ball. And on and on.
The idea that there is some sort of Platonic ideal of football or “cold weather football” of “Cleveland football” is ridiculous. You win by scoring and stopping the other team from scoring. You win by getting good players and putting them in position to be successful. You don’t win by forcing a style that used to work 50 years ago just because that’s the way your franchise won when it maybe had the best RB ever.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t use “extranuous commas” to make a point. I use them because I don’t know any better. Writing has never been an interest of mine. Therefore, this is as good as it got. Say what you will, but all of those teams tend to run the ball more as the season progresses and the weather worsens. If the Browns somehow make the playoffs, were going to need a ‘solid’ backfield to continue.
all of those teams tend to run the ball more as the season progresses
simply not true.
by DontCallMeJoey on Feb 4, 2012 3:10 AM EST up reply actions
Say what you will, but all of those teams tend to run the ball more as the season progresses and the weather worsens
Prove it. I dare you.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t have the luxury of having a ‘stats’ department, or I would. If you know where I can get the appropriate numbers to comare between games 1-12 vs. 13-18, I would be willing to try. A link would be greatly appreciated. I’d also be open to changing my opinion if I could find them.
You did. Seriously, do a google search for “NFL game logs.”
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
I have. I want specifics, like ‘number of run plays to pass plays, in games 1-12 compared to games 13-16 for bad weather teams’. What I really want is a site where I can get ‘exactly’ what I’m looking for. Rarely, does Google accomplish that.
If you are going o be the one spouting off “facts”, then you need to back them up.
Either that, or don’t be upset when someone calls bullshit. You have to call your shots here.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 6, 2012 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/
Use this. It’s the first link on google.
Two clicks later, I’m on the game log page for the Browns: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2011_games.htm
There is all kinds of information on this site, and it’s pretty easy to navigate.
Now you have no excuse for pulling numbers out of your butt.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
Interesting. Still doesn’t contain # of run plays to pass plays (not yards), in games 1-12 compared to games 13-16 for bad weather teams’. If I wanted to break it down myself, I’d be a statistician.
"...and Dawggone it, people like me".
So essentially, you just pulled something out of your keester and tried to sell it to us as fact?
You have absolutely no evidence to prove what you just said.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by rufio on Feb 7, 2012 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Agree with all of this, but we also had one of the best passing attacks of the day with Otto Graham.
You can win a lot of games with a good running game and an decent QB. When it gets to the championship games the best QB always wins. All other things set aside, Manning > Smith, Brady > Flacco. Go back through the years, the same thing always plays out. For us, fucking Elway > Kosar. I said it, it sucks but its true.
I’m not concerned with the Browns winning a championship anytime soon. Right now, lets just focus on winning the division for a couple years first. We get there, then we can go for the Grand Prize.
I’m not concerned with the Browns winning a championship anytime soon.
Really? Because I want them to win one next season. Being unlikely doesn’t mean I’m not concerned with it.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
LOL I would not be disappointed if they won a C’ship, sooner rather than later. But they got to make the playoffs first. Most likely, they’ll have to make the playoffs a few times before making the Supe. Therefore, a more realistic goal would be multiple Division C’ships. This would also accomplish my primary concern of the moment: Renewing the rivalries with our division foes. It saddens me knowing ‘those do-gooders in Pittsterd don’t rival the Browns’.
The window to win is small, losing in the playoffs sucks as much, if not more, than the regular season. We hopefully are building to compete for a championship, not making the playoffs.
Trent Dilfer just became the best QB of 2000? Just a joke. Or is Kerry Collins really that bad… wait a minute… WTF happened in 2000?
I hear what you’re saying and I think John Clayton makes a decent point in his whole elite QB thing and that an elite QB over a good QB gives you about 4-6 more pts/game and 2-3 more wins (or something like that). But I think it’s extreme to say that the better QB always wins. That guy with the rockin’ ’stache > Jim Kelley?
Oh it happened once, maybe in even twice on 2002?
Just the two best defenses since the 85 Bears. How sustainable were those teams? Good try.
Actually it was a fantastic try and great point… Mark Rypien anyone? Was Phil Sims a better QB than John Elway? I would agree that the better QB usually wins but not always. If that were the case I’d be writing this from my own private island after a few well placed bets in Vegas and deciding what other pro sports franchises to add to my collection besides the Browns.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 10, 2012 1:15 AM EST up reply actions
The only problem is that the NFL is a totally different game from when those guys played.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 10, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it is. But, are you prepared to say that no other variables matter in football games than which team has the better quarterback?
When it gets to the championship games the best QB always wins
I understand the point being made but that was a gross over simplification.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 11, 2012 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
But, are you prepared to say that no other variables matter in football games than which team has the better quarterback?
Sure, but none are as important as QB. Stafford stays healthy, Lions are good. Stafford gets hurt, they stink. Manning stays healthy, Colts are good. Manning gets hurt, they stink.
Sometimes it’s really that simple.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 11, 2012 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
The QB takes care of the ball on every play. Turnover differential is the strongest correlator to wins in the NFL. If you are -2, you lose 80% of the time. If you stay even, you win 50% of the time.
Its easily the most important position on the field, and the one that has the biggest effect on your chances of winning.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
Really?
I would agree that the better QB usually wins but not always.
I’ve never been so aggressively agreed with. And that, in response to a post I generally agreed with. I made a joke about Trent Dilfer, because he’s a fun guy to joke about and a slight qualification to someone’s point. Are people reaching for something? If it’s entertaining to some be my guest, don’t mind the occasional dogpile.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 11, 2012 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
I would agree that the better QB usually wins but not always.
I would also agree with anyone who says there are exceptions to any rule.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
As an exception, there must be times when you don’t.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 11, 2012 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
yes, I agree that what you said is correct, but I don’t think that should diminish the importance of a QB.
Generally 6th round QBs stink, but occasionally they are Tom Brady. Should we go draft 6th round QBs?
The Better QB losing is an exception to the general rule, if you are looking at a whole season (because no one goes 19-0). You don’t bank on the exceptions, but the rules.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
So let me make sure I am understanding you correctly:
The better QB usually wins, but, sometimes the team with the better QB doesn’t win.
Is that what you are saying?
So, are you also willing to say that when it gets to the championship games the best QB always wins?
If you really want to go down this rabbit hole there’s not much I can do to stop you. I didn’t intend to say anything that diminished the importance of the QB position. Dilfer, Sims, Rypien, they all earned those rings. All this stuff about Stafford, Manning, number of touches, turnovers, Tom Brady, etc. it’s fun to listen to and informative. I just hope you realize that you’re trying to convince me of something that I already believe to be true and have stated as such 4 times.
by Mal Reynolds on Feb 12, 2012 2:14 AM EST up reply actions
I think you’re putting to much of a negative connotation on the word argument. We generally don’t use it to mean “comment designed to get people to yell at each other”, more “a persuasive discourse.”
Most comments on here are opinions and when you post on a public forum such as this you’ve entered a tacit agreement that whatever you wrote is open to scrutiny from others regardless of whether they agree with you or not.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
Like someone else said below, people are gonna poke and prod at your opinion around here if they don’t agree with it. Just be ready to defend it and remember that (most of the time) it isn’t personal. We all love our Brownies here and want them to win.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
by Adrock2099 on Feb 1, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
REC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
A side of me also wanted to rec. this. But, I couldn’t because I don’t get it. Would you mind explaining it to me?
J.W. is famous for “ghost recs” he says: REC, but never actually recs anything.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
To lazy to do the rest. Three letters are enough for me.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Three letters and fifteen exclamation points.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Feb 3, 2012 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Your point is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
By this reasoning we should be running the triple option.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
That would be awesome as a trick play, or the “Statue of Liberty”. I would love to see some of the oldest of the old school plays thrown in there every once in a while. Hopefully at the Steelers expense, and especially if it makes the crybaby start bawling again (such sweet sweet tears)..
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Reminds me of that annoying trick play the used to run with Randle-El that other teams fell for ALL THE TIME.
"We just lost to the Steelers 20 hours ago and that still hurts. I need to get home and eat a burrito." -Phil Dawson
My favorite game either pro or college was the Boise St – OU game. Damn if I wasn’t at a co-workers house watching that game, surrounded by pukes in there red/white sooner garb. It was so sweet, I still have the recording….
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Did you see the Miami @ Pitt game where they re-sodded the field right before like a week straight of rain? It looked like they were playing in a bog. I remember watching a punt that didn’t get caught bury itself halfway into the field when it hit. Laughed my ass off. I’m surprised they didn’t postpone it. I want to say it was the first game of the 06 season.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
Yea. Ricky Williams’ first game back. What I remember most about that game was, Joey Porters intensity, playing against his former team, Lamar Woodley, intentionally stomping Williams’ forearm and the final score. 3-0. Was a Monday night game in ’07.
You were right, it was indeed an 07 MNF game.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I remember a Steeler game in Miami that was literally being played on the front edge of a hurricane.
I made a killing in Vegas on that game taking the under.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
Spin it however you like. The Browns have very few winning seasons, if any, without a 1000 yard rusher.
You realize the two teams in the Super Bowl don’t have a 1,000 yard rusher?
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You realize niether of the 2 teams in the Super Bowl are the Cleveland Browns? I’m convinced, the Browns will never make the Supe, without a better than avg. rushing attack.
The giants RBs collectively ran for over 1400 yards. Interestingly enough, each back also had an avg ypc of less than 4.
The Pats RB collectiively ran for over 1700 yards. Also interesting, thier RB with the most carries also had an avg ypc of less than 4.
I don’t feel we need a 1000 yard rusher if the carries are being split up between more than one back. As long as each back maintains an avg. ypc of 3.5 or better.
the Browns will never make the Supe, without a better than avg. rushing attack.
What makes the Browns inherently different than any other team?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
The inherent difference? For me, I guess that would be that I care about the Browns and not any other team.
REC!!! I dont give 2 shits about any other pro football team either. I do respect a few, but I still hate them.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
First, saying “REC” isn’t a rec. Second, notthatnoise’s question wasn’t asking about our rooting interests, he was asking why a 1,000 yard rusher is critical to the Browns’ success but not the Patriots or Giants.
Steel Nick
You don’t need a 1000 yard rusher if you have more than one back that produces as do the Giants and Pats.
If the the Browns backs ‘produce’ as a unit, then a 1,000 yard rusher isn’t critical. But when they only have one legit producer, it is, IMO.
So if Hardesty bounces back, what is the issue?
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions
If we resign Hillis, and he can stay healthy AND Hardesty bounces back, I have no issue with our backfield. I still have modest expectations for B.Jackson as well.
You realize niether of the 2 teams in the Super Bowl are the Cleveland Browns?
Holy sh!t. They aren’t? Man, that’s a bummer.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 1, 2012 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
this is completely false.
The Browns have had 14 winning seasons since 1970. In how many of them did they have an 1,000 yard rusher? 5. 4 of these were by the Pruitts (1 by greg and 3 by mike). Since 1983, it has only happened once, in 2007.
What has happened more is really good QB play. You talked before about Kosar and having mack and Byner, but neither one had 1,000 yards in a winning season. The Browns stopped winning on the back of their RBs when everyone else did, back in the early 70s.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
What you are forgetting, is a lot of passes to the RB’s also. A little short out pass with a 5-7 YAC was a common occurance. So that also would drive the rush numbers down. I think a better way to look at is, the RB’s total yards.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Byner was definitely a threat out of the backfield. Even so, out of the 4 winning seasons between him and Kosar, he only cracked 1,000 yards from scrimmage twice. Even taking it into account, we weren’t really winning because of 1,000 yard rushers (though that’s nothing against Byner)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
good production, but nowhere near 1,000 rushing yards and the yards from scrimmage was consistently dropping. He was never the receiver out of the backfield that Byner was either
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I had to look that one up. Was ’85 and ’88 that Byner had 1,000+ yscm. Mack had 957 and 958 yscm, in ’86 and ’87, with 292 and 223 recieiving yards, repsectively. Byner came up just short with 984 yscm, in ’87 as well.
Agreed, Byner was the better reciever. IMO, they were both better, together, than on thier own.
Oh, the good ole days. lol
You may or may not find this interesting as well.
The 2 combined for: 2,429 yscm in ‘85, 1,562 (’86), 1,942 (‘87) and 1,724 (’88).
Byner only played in 7 games in ’86, thier least productive season together, and Mack played in only 11 games in ’88, thier 2nd lowest.
Side note: Mack only played in 12 games in ’86 and again in ’87 and still managed to come up less than 45 yards short of a 1,000 yscm both years.
and the team went 8-8.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
They were definitely great as a pair. mack was such a tough runner and Byner could be used in so many ways.
In no way am I trying to diminish their performance, but it goes back to my belief that even back in the 80s, the NFL was definitely a passing league (the Browns started to win when Kosar blossomed).
The biggest strike to pass Ds was definitely the “mel blount rule”.
The implementation of that in ’78 (which removed a lot of contact downfield) and guys like marino and montana caused there to be an extremely strong correlation between that rule and increased passing attacks.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Getting good production from a back doesn’t mean having 1000 yards, and it doesn’t mean having some sort of ubiquitous rushing attack.
If you can run the ball better than everyone else by leaps and bounds and have decent QB play and a great defense, you can make the playoffs. But it is really tough to run the ball better than everyone else in the NFL. You have to have a lot of pieces in place.
Having a good quarterback, on the other hand, means you only need one piece. And there is a stronger correlation between having a good QB and winning than there is between having a good RB and winning.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
The point I was making here didn’t invole 1 back having 1,000. There were 2 productive backs in those 4 winning seasons. In the 2 years that Byners productivity dropped, Macks picked up.
decent QB play and a great defense, you can make the playoffs
This is all I’d be trying to achieve, at this particular moment.
by leaps and bounds
This, I cannot agree with.
I like Byner and mack, but it was really Kosar leading those teams. They helped move the chains, but after that season where they racked up 1,000 yards each (and still only finished 8-8), the rushing attack was pretty much there to occasionally move the chains and keep the D honest.
Out of 28 teams, the Browns ranked:
22, 21, 24, and 21 in total yards
24, 22, 25, and 24 in ypa
14, 16, 23 and 19 in 1st downs.
The rushing attack wasn’t bad and they mack did pick up when Byner wasn’t as productive, but I guess it comes down to what you define as “productive”.
Were they reliable? Yes. Could they move the chains, especially in short yard situations? Yes. Could they punch it in for a TD? Yes. Were they one of the more productive rushing attacks in the league? No. Did they break open games often or carry the offense at all? No.
They were reliable, but they were no more “productive” than the combo of BJGE and Woodhead in NE.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I agree that Kosars leadership was the deciding factor in his teams’ success. His ‘desire’ to bring a c’ship to Cleveland is something I haven’t seen on the field since. Not saying all the players we’ve had since Kosar ‘lack the desire’ but I haven’t been able to see it. Even with Cribbs. He says the right words but where’s the passion?
For some reason unknown to me, Top pro athletes DON’T want to play in Cleveland. This is a well known fact. Cleveland gets a bad rap from outsiders. Especially the ones that have never even been there. This is the same reason the Steelers fans of N.E Ohio infuriate me. Most of them have never even been to Pittsburgh. While uptown Pitt may be more impressive, the majority of that city is a dump. I live 80 miles south of Cleveland and I would much rather live there than in Pittsburgh. I suppose if I were a multi millionaire that opinion could change but, I’m not.
You are out of your mind if you don’t think one QB could turn us into a 9-7 team overnight.
If you want to be Houston and commit all your 1st and 2nd rounders to the defensive front 7 and gear your entire offense around the zone runs, you can run the ball all over and make the playoffs. But at some point you are counting on TJ Yates to make plays and he won’t be able to make enough of them in the playoffs. And you’ll have committed 100% of your resources in the zone runs and rushing the passer.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
My point exactly. Houston is case in point. Which teams have made it deep into the playoffs without a bigtime talent at QB recently?
Keep in mind that Alex Smith was the first overall pick.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I’ll take that as a backhanded compliment. I don’t see any flags so, it must not be so bad as to waste your 1 flag. lol
You don’t see the flags, the mods do.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
Oh no, please don’t take it as any kind of compliment.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 2, 2012 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
this whole post is ridiculous.. RGIII probably won’t even around at #4… we’d only trade if RGIII is gone anyway so assumedly you wouldn’t want a trade, because you’re trying to convince us we don’t need a QB in the AFC and you do in the NFC East (There are no words to describe how stupid your argument is), go try this on the Rams blog
by alirenee on Jan 31, 2012 1:27 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
He seems genuine when you read his post.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Im not trying to change your view on rg3 or the need for a qb
the point I was attempting to make was that with the outstanding line backers in your division having a quality running back is important . I understand that qb is a big need for both of our teams. but the better qb’s are in the nfc east .Imho you guys could draft rg3 but unless you can consistently run the ball against thos defenses it wont matter. the redskin fanbase is split some want rg3 at any cost some will accept tannehill/ weeden and some want peyton it seems that Rg3 is who the majority of browns fans want . and that was the only purpose of this post. I dont think you guys will have to worry check this out
http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/1/19/2717984/mike-holmgren-says-redskins-should-trade-up-for-a-quarterback
Bengals went 9-7 with a RB who has only once averaged over 4 ypc when given a significant amount of time.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
huh? His ypc looks bad no matter how many carries he has. He could have 1 million carries, but if he runs for 3.5 ypc, there are better options.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
So, you would be more impressed by a RB with a 12 carry, 5.0 ypc, per game avg. vs. a back with 29 carry, 3.5 ypc, per game avg? Thats 60 yards of production vs. 102. I know which looks better on paper to me. What am I missing here?
The more carries a back gets, the more difficult it is to maintain a high avg ypc. Bensons career ypc is 3.77. Not elite, but by no means anything to be negative over. He’s a workhorse.
I know Barry Sanders avg. 20 carries and 100 yards per game. But of those 20 carries, more often than not, he was tackled for a loss. IMO, Sanders would not have those high averages playing against todays NFL defenses. The talent level of a modern defense puts more emphasis on running a balanced dual-threat offense. You couldn’t hand the ball off to Sanders on 3rd and 15, 3-5 times per game in todays NFL. How far did the 5.0 ypc Sanders take his team in 10 seasons? Not far. No where, in fact. In other words, having a RB thats less than impressive for 75% of his touches, yet gets his 100 yards on on 5 big runs per game, doesn’t win many games. In a dual threat offense, I’ll take the workhorse, all season long.
Emitt Smiths 4.2 ypc is a more impressive to me because he had fewer breakout runs than Sanders but also fewer negative yard runs. Sanders put his QB in tougher situations while Smith made life easier on Aikman. Bensons 3.77 career ypc doesn’t look that bad to me considering how the ‘05-’11 Bengals O measures up against the ’90-00 Cowboys O as a whole.
Emmitt Smith also had the best offensive line in the history of football.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 1, 2012 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
Barry Sanders would have still had about the same in negative yards
cause that is his style, he did not just take what was there he was looking to make the big play
I disagree.
Sanders lost yards because he had to make guys miss in the backfield. If he had gaping holes like Emmitt Smith, he would be making guys miss downfield.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 5, 2012 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
12 carries is still at least somewhat significant.
I would take the guy who rushes 12 times for 5.0 ypc rather than the guy who rushes 24 times for 3.5 ypc (I took it down from 29 because no one in the NFL rushes for 464 carries a season which 29 per game translates to).
What am I missing here?
You are missing the point that while 84 (adjusted down) is more than 60, it also took double the tries to get there and that means double the amount of plays used.
You only have a limited amount of times you can snap the ball in a game and if you use them up with low efficiency plays that get you few yards, you aren’t going to do as well as high efficiency bursts of 5 ypc.
Not elite, but by no means anything to be negative over.
False. The league average over the last few years has been right around the 4.2-4.3 range. That means he gets you a half less yard than your average starting RB. And it’s not a negative?
But of those 20 carries, more often than not, he was tackled for a loss.
I get what you are trying to say, but you are completely wrong. He had more positive plays than negative plays, easily. And he WOULD have those averages against the NFL defenses of today. He is that talented.
How far did the 5.0 ypc Sanders take his team in 10 seasons? Not far.
I’ll take the workhorse, all season long.
To quote billy madison: everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
You just said you would take Benson over a HOFer because he is a “workhorse”. Oh, and I guess because Benson won and Sanders didn’t, Benson>>>>Sanders. Cause, it’s not like there are other players on the field, right?
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
It’s so obvious to me now that, you most definitely read way to much into, probably everything. You want me to be wrong. So, you make me wrong. I don’t like Benson. Only respect his ability. Only mentioned Sanders and Smith because they both have higher ypc with more carries. But I don’t put as much emphasis on Sanders #s because of the high number of breakouts runs and negative runs. I wasn’t making an arguement as to who the better back was between Benson and Sanders. The point was that Sanders had the higher ypc but won the fewest games and that Smiths ypc, closer to Bensons’, at 4.2 vs. 3.8, was good enough to win championships.
Completely wrong? Making everyone dumber? May God have mercy on my soul? Really dude? WTH is wrong with you? Are you bi-polar. Sometimes you come off as an okay guy and you’re quite talented at expressing your views. But you’re also quite good at being rude and obnoxious. If I make you feel that you need to be that way, then just don’t reply.
I wasn’t making an arguement as to who the better back was between Benson and Sanders.
not exactly, but your opinion was
I’ll take the workhorse, all season long.
The workhorse here is Benson, not Sanders.
The point was that Sanders had the higher ypc but won the fewest games
RBs don’t win games anymore in the NFL. Hard to blame Sanders for that. Look at Adrian Peterson. That team is under-.500 for his career despite having Brett Favre for 2 years. Wins aren’t a good measurement of any position that isn’t QB.
Smiths ypc, closer to Bensons’, at 4.2 vs. 3.8, was good enough to win championships.
There is a huge difference there anyways, almost 1/2 yard. Even so, I don’t get what you are proving. Benson at his best (right around 4 ypc) is about as good as Sanders at his worst once he had slowed down.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Look, the Billy Madison Comment was out of line, and you are entitled to your opinion, but we are also entitled to rip it apart. over a career 4.2 and 3.8 aren’t all that close, especially considering the last few years of Smith’s career.
More importantly, you used wins to evaluate running backs. I’m trying to come up with a word more kind than “stupid” but I’m struggling here.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
Just take it slow….it stops hurting after a while and you get accepted.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
He’s been around long enough to know the ropes.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t feel hurt by it. I only get annoyed by it because I don’t understand what is that makes people want to be that way. I know what makes me want to be a jerk to others. It’s quite simple actually. Jerks make me feel like being a jerk back.
You will have hundreds of opinions chewing at you. It’s all in how you handle it.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
Like I said, the Billy Madison comment was over the line. But you are trying to make this personal where it isn’t. You are pretending bross wants you, personally, to be wrong for some reason. That’s ridiculous. He wants you to realize how stupid that particular piece of evidence was.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
exactly. I agree in hindsight that the Billy madison part was over the line. I was not annoyed at him personally, but at the evidence he tried to use and that’s why I said it. It was not personal.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Why you making excuses to NTN and not me? Afraid I may interpret as a half-assed attempt at an apology. Don’t worry I’m not.
Can’t seem to find the comment I’m looking for so, I’ll have to paraphrase here: People will become more stupid just from reading my comments? I shouldn’t take that personal? Really? You make one personal derogatory comment and all your other disparaging remarks become personal as well.
You’ll learn soon enough that you can’t beat bross in a debate. He rope-a-dopes.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 1, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
He also never gives up.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Bross is a smart Kat. I think he sets himself up and drops the hammer later on.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 1, 2012 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
Is he your hero or something?
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Bross is Ok. Just need to learn how to take him.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
You, sir, have definitely drunk too much at the slots. How did you do and where did you play?
by Brownie's Year on Feb 1, 2012 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
No I think that would be Golan.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
That’s too far from the truth. I befriended him to get his alias. That’s it. The only person I’ve told, or will ever tell (maybe I’ll give Simms a heads up) is DN. I’ll tell you this though… Golan is a sic individual. He’s here and I don’t reply to his posts as per agreement.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 1, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
I see what you did there, Golan.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
because he said exactly I would say. In hindsight the comment was over the line, but NTN summed up my thoughts on it perfectly, so I agreed. If you want a face to face apology, I am fine with that. I am sorry for that comment.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
by bross09 on Feb 1, 2012 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You want me to be wrong. So, you make me wrong.
I’m fairly hog certain you don’t need bross’s help to be wrong.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 2, 2012 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I’m lazy from time to time as well. But, I don’t hate on others to make me feel better about my own shortcomings.
LOL That’s cool. Only, I wasn’t incinuating that you hated me but that, you ‘hate on’. i.e. A hater. I may be wrong but it certainly feels that, most of your comments are you hating others’ opinions and/or agreeing with those who also ‘hate’ them. i.e. The haters club. lol
Nbd. Really.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
This was funny…too bad we couldn’t get more people on the web show thread.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 2, 2012 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
What else, exactly, do you think this website is? Sure, we all frequently have fun with running jokes and pictures, etc.; but essentially, it’s people expressing opinions about the Browns, and others either agreeing or disagreeing with them.
It seems to me you may be a little too sensitive to my comments. No offense is intended, I can assure you.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Really, dude…there is no ‘good’ reason to be that disrespectful to anyone. No matter how wrong they may actually be. I read your comments and don’t disagree with 90% of what you say. So, you can’t possibly disagree with me all-the-time. I like numbers. I also like getting them from you. Keep ‘em comin’. But, why can’t we do what we do without the dispariging remarks?
If I were to say, by my recolection, Sanders has more negative run plays than any HOF RB. You choose to interpret that as “I’m saying Sanders isn’t worthy of being in the HOF”. What I think I’d be saying is “the number of negative runs to Breakout runs ratio is to risky for my liking”.
He obviously deserves all of the praise he gets. But, it doesn’t change the fact that his ypc can be misleading because he didn’t get 5 yards on “most” carries. Some games he’d have to run for 130+ positive yards to have a 100 yard game. If, I’m trying to find a RB to rely heavily on (which I would be if we can’t retain Hillis), I’m looking for one that gains positive yards on most carries, even if it means sacrificing ypc avg. In otherwords, I put more emphasis on consistency and dependability than ypc. If I need one yard I want that 1 yard, 100% of the time, if I call my 1 yard guys #.
Are the odds of moving the chains, consistently, not more favorable with a back that rarely breaks a long one but also rarely gets taken down for a loss vs. the back that breaks long ones regularly but is dropped behind the line almost as often? I’m asking because I’m interested to know what you think. But, honestly, if you can’t answer it without trying to make me look stupid for asking, I’d rather you just not answer at all.
FYI: Not that anyone cares but, just in case someones’ curious…I’m up at 530 am because I drove all night, last night. So I had to sleep in the afternoon. And yes, I hope to sleep til at least noon today. lol
I was up at 5:30ish because I was drunk off my ass last night. Although that might have been about the time I fell asleep.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t have been had my wife not called from work and woke my ass up. Think I was still a bit buzzed when I got up too.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 1, 2012 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
You choose to interpret that as "I’m saying Sanders isn’t worthy of being in the HOF"
you are misinterpreting my supposed misinterpretation.
But of those 20 carries, more often than not, he was tackled for a loss. IMO, Sanders would not have those high averages playing against todays NFL defenses.
This is your original quote. All I was saying is that Sanders was the type of talent that could dominate even today’s NFL and he definitely had more positive plays than negative plays.
. If, I’m trying to find a RB to rely heavily on (which I would be if we can’t retain Hillis), I’m looking for one that gains positive yards on most carries,
I look for a RB that gives his team the best chance to win. When you have a guy like Sanders who can carry your team if needed and is a threat to catch the ball, I’d say he gives you an amazing chance to win, no matter what negative plays he has.
I put more emphasis on consistency and dependability than ypc.
You seem to be under the impression that Benson is the kind of back that just runs 4 yards ahead on every play. Not the case. His success rate is at best average.
Consistency is nice and you want some consistency, but you want your guy to be able to break a few tackles too. Are mendenhall and BJGE better than Peterson or mjd? The latter two consistently rank as very average in consistency but are amazing backs who make huge plays. I’d take their occasional bad play accompanied by a home run over the consistent mediocrity of the other 2.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Sanders ran more backwards than any other RB in the History of the NFL
and he did NOT keep his offense on schedule like Emmitt Smith did, and that can effect wins and loses cause in stead of 3rd and 3 you looking at 3rd and 9 or 3rd and 11, that is a big difference. Most teams dont pick up 3rd and long’s very often but 3rd and short or medium is a lot easier to pick up. Also if a guy is getting 20-25 plus carries most likely that RB’s team is winning the game cause you run to put the game away.
I am not arguing Emmitt vs. Sanders. Honestly, in their peak years they were both about as good with Sanders being more explosive but Smith still being pretty darn incredible. I wasn’t comparing the two though.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I’ll argue that one — Sanders was light years ahead of Smith. Not really any question about it. Barry and Jim Brown are the two best RBs to play the game. Smith might be in the top 10.
Once you start comparing a QB to Drew Brees, you've lost the argument.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Feb 1, 2012 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
you can not count on Barry Sanders to make the 5 yards run
he is a great HOF back but not the 2nd best back of all time. I think it is Jim Brown, Walter, OJ, in that order
Please drop the subject line.
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
I would rank sanders ahead of emmitt if I was making the comparison too. I just thought that trying to make this comparison in this thread could open up a can of worms.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Yea, I got what you were trying to say the first time you said it. It just stopped mattering to me when your insults became a priority.
Again, my impression of Benson is not that he gains 4 yards on every play. Only that he gains positive yards on most carries. I believe a better game plan can be prepared when the players are more consistent and dependable.
Insults never became a priority. I threw out one and all you have been doing is whining and crying to people in a sense saying “he called me stupid”.
That’s your impression, but if you actually look it up, he is more like the kind of runner that gets 5 yards twice and then gets stuffed for 1. Actually, that is being complimentary because that is a solid success rate when his is average at best. He is a poor man’s mendenhall.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Uhh…no. You threw out several. And you do so on a regular basis. The only person I’ve been complaining about it to, is you. Hoping you’ll see the error of your ways. Nothing good can come from it. Unless feeding your own ego is the main objective.
outside of that Billy madison comment, I don’t think I threw out anything that serious.
I really don’t throw around insults on a regular basis. If you seriously think this, try to go through comments, come back, and blockquote the insult (since you are fairly new, that is done with the button that looks like a quotation mark)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I put more emphasis on consistency and dependability than ypc.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. A consistent 3.5 YPC is still awful.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
A consistent 3.5 ypc is still awful? Lets just agree to disagree. IMO, 3.5 career ypc, with a large number of carries is not elite and will not get many backs an HOF nomination, but I don’t believe it is a sign of an"awful" RB.
Even for me, productivity is more important than consistency/depenability.
Yes, 3.5 YPC is terrible.
If your team ran for 3.5 YPC this season, it would have been dead last in the NFL.
by Bernie19Kosar on Feb 1, 2012 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Cincys 3 backs rushed for 1532 yards on 402 carries for an avg ypc of 3.8. My bad, they outperformed my guesstimate by an avg. of 1 foot per carry. Did they finish the season dead last?
Didn’t this discussion start because we said Cedric Benson sucked and you said he didn’t?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 1, 2012 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
I honestly can’t remember how it started. Tried to forget parts of it and got lost in the process. lol But yes, I said somewhere, I respect his game and also, paraphrasing here, “sucked” is too strong of a negativity, IMO. For me the bottom dwellers suck. Middle of the pack, not so much.
Sanders played on a team that he pretty much was the offense. Benson played on more balanced teams his carrer, so using them both as comparisson doesn’t really work.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
I wasn’t trying to make a comparson between Sanders and Benson, persay. From my view, the conversations subject became ‘Stats’. I was only using Bensons stats because we had been discussing his ypc, previously. I chose Sanders and his stats because, I think his numbers are the most obviously misleading, based on my memories of him. The numbers not painting the whole picture, was the point I was trying to make.
If he can run for 3.5 in short yardage and goal line, that’s tremendous production.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
I don’t think he ran this in goal line situations. The Bengals ranked 25th by Football Outsiders in short yardage situations.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Then again, the point still stands, but there’s a better way to make it.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
commacommacomma
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
who gives a f*&k about the oxford comma?
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I do, screw Vampire Weekend
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
by bross09 on Feb 2, 2012 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
rec for answering your own question. The Oxford comma is important.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 2, 2012 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The Oxford comma is damn important. I am probably gonna hear a ton about that and split infinitives this semester.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I think it would be outstanding if Oxford University’s mascot was the Commas.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
That would be so amazing.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
listened to a couple songs, not really my personal taste anyways.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
I didn’t like it at first but have since come around.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 4, 2012 11:16 PM EST up reply actions
That’s fine. I just won’t listen to an artist that disses important grammar, nor would I listen to someone who raps about black and gold, no matter how much weed he smokes.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
So you’re saying smoking a ton of weed would otherwise be a selling point? Too many damn hippies around here.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
haha.
I just threw that out to make it more obvious I was talking about Wiz Khalifa.
And I am a hippie and damn proud of it.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
What? I have a hard time believing this. lol sarcasm.
Isn’t that the band that sings extended Tommy Hilfiger jingles? Or is it Ralph Lauren? It’s one of those. lol
Why do you have a hard time believing Vampire Weekend isn’t my personal taste? What do you think my taste in music is? I bet you have no idea.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
http://www.prosportsblogging.com/author/bross09/
Like DBN on Facebook
Sarcasm doesn’t translate well to a computer screen.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 1:21 AM EST up reply actions
What was his success %? I like YPC as a measurement of big plays more than anything. I think a lot of the value of a back in a typical offense comes from the things success % measures more than pure YPC.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
his success rate is still below average. mid-40s out of the (around) 60 players on Advanced NFL Stats. Right under mendenhall I believe and I think mendenhall isn’t good.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
Thats the stat to use.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
ypc I’d say is important to look at still. It measures how good of a “home run threat” a guy can be and long runs still have huge impacts on the game.
I think success rate is important, I just believe in having a smorgasboard of stats because if you just look at SR, mark Ingram looks like a top 10 back and by ypc, De’Angelo Williams looks like a top 10 back.
Combining stats gives you a good picture of who the best player in the league was (stats say Shady mccoy was the best this year and I wouldn’t doubt it)
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
A smorgasboard of stats. I like that. But still, what I see on the field is more important than what I see on paper.
Stats say McCoy was the best? at what? I’m the McCoy supporter here and even I have a hard time believing that. lol
Stats rank mccoy as a very below average QB. Somewhere around Tavaris jackson I believe.
I look at what I see on the field, but I am not a scout and all I have is an untrained eye, so I use stats to supplament that. Something like SR is also harder to pick up with the untrained eye than overall ypc or big plays.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I on the otherhand, have more confidence in my eye (and ear, for that matter) for talent than in my knowledge of stats. I’m not always right and players frequently change my opinion of them. But, I am right often enough that I see no reason to change my approach. I base my opinions on what I see first, then use stats when I want more data before deciding how I feel about a particular player . As I’ve stated before, IMO, stats are a useful tool but they don’t tell the ‘whole story’.
I don’t believe it’s possible to be right all the time. Especially, when the topic is an athlete. Too much subjectivity involved.
Rarely, do stats change my opinion on a player I’m familiar with. Performance or lack thereof, is most likely to change my mind. RG3 for example, I’ve seen enough of him to know that he’s a very talented player with a high ceiling. But, I have not seen enough to think that he would be a drastic improvement over McCoy because I also haven’t seen enough of McCoy to close the book on him.
I’ve seen enough of him to know that he’s a very talented player with a high ceiling. But, I have not seen enough to think that he would be a drastic improvement over McCoy because I also haven’t seen enough of McCoy to close the book on him
I understand this. I also believe on the mccoy issue in trends and history repeating itself. I believe he still has a tiny window of opportunity based on my watching but based on trends of 3rd round QBs, I am not at all optimistic.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I feel the same way about most 3rd QBs. Only difference is McCoy was projected to be an early 2nd rd pick. In believing that Tebow and Clausens’ cielings were lower, Colt should have been the Broncos’ 2nd rd pick instead of Tebow. So, I still ‘value’ McCoy as a 2nd rounder, rather than the 3rd rounder he eventually “fell” to us at. Don’t get me wrong, I’m willing to cut him… if he ‘fails’ in ’12.
First, just to clarify, when i said Shady mccoy, I think you thought I meant Colt. I was talking about Lesean mccoy (if you didn’t pick that up later).
I did hear Colt as maybe a mid-2nd rounder by guys like Kiper…but he was taken in the 3rd. Still, saying he is a mid-2nd round talent doesn’t make me much more confident.
I never had confidence in Clausen either and I think Colt will end up better, but to me that’s not saying much.
I want Colt around in 2012, I just don’t want to ’bank on colt" and avoid drafting a QB, especially one with the talent of RG3
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
according to Bleacher Report:
LeSean McCoy received the nickname “Shady” from his mother as a baby, due to his constantly changing mood. McCoy’s mother said that her son would “go from smiling one minute to shy the next.”
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I understand this. Stats don’t tell the whole story, check out Rufio’s signature.
Oftentimes the stats just confirm and put into better terms what my eyes see. I have never seen a very impressive RB in Benson and the stats show that. I also thought Ryan matthews was having an incredible year and the stats support that too.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
what I see on the field is more important than what I see on paper.
Then you will never get along with a lot of people here. None of us are professional talent evaluators. None of us are scouts. But we all have numbers.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 1, 2012 11:48 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting. Never looked at it like that. I like to think I could’ve become a good scout had I known how to go about getting such a gig.
If you were good enough to be a scout, you’d have gotten a job as one.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
Not true. Honestly, there’s no jobs out there that, you think you could do but, for some reason or another, can’t get? Of course there is.
Absolutely. Porn star.
Resident Tim Couch Apologist.
by Dawg Nuts on Feb 2, 2012 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
YPC is a much better measure of “home run” threat for sure, and that’s how I would use it. And really several different stats combined give you a much better numerical model as to performance on the whole.
But the individual value of specific stats will vary based on the team’s offensive style and how good their offense is. For instance, a back with a low SR but high YPC would be extremely valuable to an offense that doesn’t score many points but has a good defense to also keep scoring down. A team that scores a lot but needs a back to get a few yards consistently and convert “big” downs would like the SR guy (this is BJGE’s role with the Pats).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
yep. You described BJGE’s play exactly. 3.5 yards every time.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
I’m thinking he’s saying without the other pieces around the starting “QB” (whomever he is) in the AFCN, a rock star QB won’t get it done by himself. I dont understand why he would say that, becasue the same is true in the NFCE, if your missing the other pieces (Redskins), an awesome QB will suck there too.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Where are people getting this “AFC North is a ground and pound division”?
by Brownie's Year on Jan 31, 2012 6:10 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
Most recently Bettis and Lewis but that goes away back in itself.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
Even then Bettis never won anything without a QB and Lewis needed the best defense in the history of football.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Jan 31, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Right on…both had great D’s. If anything this should be the “assaulting AFC north” which brings me back to linebacker…j/k. No more LB talk for me. I’m shut off.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Jan 31, 2012 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
No, it doesn’t. The game is different on a fundamental level. The actual rules of the game are different. What you are doing is almost the same as someone saying we don’t need to use the forward pass because teams won without it in the good old days.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
Yes, I am familiar with the rules changes. Especially, the ones put in place to protect the QB and recievers. They give the offense an advantage that wasn’t there before. This, IMO, is why even the teams, with bad QBs, incorrectly, put more emphasis on the passing attack even when there ground game is thier obvious strong suit.
The formula for winning is all on the coach recognizing his personnel. This has never changed. Whether you can run OR pass. It’s all about schemes. Does it help to have a bruiser in the dead of winter? Yes. Does it help to have a strong armed QB when its 16 degrees out? Yes. Would it help if we had someone like Belichik designing our strategy? OMFG Yes.
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
We had him once, and I instantly hated his guts! i still do to this day! He killed off a consistantly winning team, that only needed reloading of talent, not rebuilding. There is a difference..
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
First off, Belichik was not my point. Coaching is. Secondly, what is reloading vs. rebuilding?
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Reloading is when you have a core of quality players, and just have to swap out a few when needed.
Rebuilding is when you aint got a pot to piss in to start withm, which is almost where we were when H & H showed up (we already had JT – so a 100% rebuild wasn’t required).
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
Please explain what you mean by saying Belichik rebuilt instead of reloaded?
We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 1, 2012 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
I think he’s referring to is Belichiks’, like so many coaches, insistence on “building” THIER team. If you give a coach all the power, they want all the glory. Not as much glory in winning with the previous mans team. So, they choose to “blow it up”, rather than fill needs. BB didn’t feel the need to blow up the Parcells teams he took over because he helped Parcells “build” them. I think the Browns will benefit from bringing the HCOF in, after the team “building” began. Thereby, limiting Shurmurs control over the team. IMO, Mangini was never considered a possibility for the future. He was only fulfilling the duties until a ‘Holmgren guy’ could be obtained.
Also coaches do this because they think players they pick will be more loyal and obedient to them. Managers do this at normal jobs all the time.
Coaches that bring in FAs they’ve managed before, know who the kiss-asses are. Donovans’ spunkiness has always made me think ‘asskisser’. McNabbs’ comin’ to the Browns’! LMAO
Liked it 3 years ago. Hated it the last 2 yrs. Love it now. This is great news for McCoy. 3. Someone to mentor him on exactly how to execute Shurmurs plays. 2. ‘Immediate’ competition for the starting job. 1 (LoL). A sign that RG3 Is Not the Browns’ target.
Damn you HD! lol
You’ve made me change my stance on RG3!
I’m now WANT RG3 @ #4. But, there is always a but. lol ‘BUT’, only ‘IF’ we also get McNabb AND Blackmon is off the board.
If McCoy fails, we got RG3. If Colt succeeds, RG3 will be a massive chunk of ‘tradebait’. He has the Heisman for an anchor. lol
Maybe a couple sandwiches.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
What is it with you and sandwiches?
When you consider more things from all angles, you'll get more things from all angles. We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 5, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
The meat would be an added bonus. But 2 sandwiches and a box of Jujyfruits would be an offer Heckert won’t refuse.
by Brownie's Year on Feb 5, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
I was actually going for the comedic value of “Bad Santa” here…when will u guys ever get my sarcasm?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtF5dMzAF2k
When you consider more things from all angles, you'll get more things from all angles. We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 6, 2012 12:30 AM EST up reply actions
When teams call Heckert, he’s like, “I’m on my f*cking lunch break!”
by Brownie's Year on Feb 6, 2012 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Lol
When you consider more things from all angles, you'll get more things from all angles. We'll be kicking ourselves if we don't get Burflict.
by The New Kardiac Kids on Feb 6, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
“Don’t tell me how to live my life!”
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway
by notthatnoise on Feb 8, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
First of all, we tried running game and defense without any discernible passing game. Turns out that is just another way to spell failure. As for the questions:
1) Everything +.
2) No/No
3) No
4) I can live without Colt, but I’m fond of the farm.
5) Yes and yes.
"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.
A lot, No, No, No, A good deal of it.
I teach good life choices. That's why I almost didn't graduate high school.
Follow @BRoss2013
1. No reasonable offer refused.
2. Blackmon makes me happy all by himself.
3. McNabb would be a total waste of time. Delhomme2.0
4. No to trading Colt to Indy for Luck unless RG3 is the only other choice given.
5. Niether. The Browns have talent. A few key pieces, experience and depth are all that
remain.
1. An extra first to trade down, but as somebody said before only if Griffin and Blackmon are not available
2. Absolutely not. I do not want Tannehill OR Richardson in the first.
3. If this were the 1999 draft, I’d say yes, but its 13 years later so… no.
4. Depends on what you mean by “the farm.” I’d do it for our #4, #22, and #37, but not more than that.
5. Both, but I think the talent around him and Colt himself are in very difficult situations.
"When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." -Paul Brown
1. I would listen to any offer
2. No project QB’s, and no RB’s in the first round
3. No, he’s pretty much done. ( a special assistant to a QB for training – I could do that)
4. I would trade Colt to Indy and give my #4 pick, thats it. I likes my farm.
5. All facets of the offense failed this past season.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
This sucks trying to keep the words straight and spelling right. i couldnt win at the casinos but the booze was damn good…….. going to sleep.
A bargain is something you don't need at a price you can't resist....
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong!
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch!
let me also say that trading back going all in on free agency is way overrated.The browns Redskins every year seem to go that direction and im always puzzled at why
Brilliant!
Dawgs by Nature -- where Montario Hardesty, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by North Coast Flea on Feb 2, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
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
