"GM Jeff", who regrettably represents Cleveland fans on NFL Radio...and wanted Ryan Tucker replaced when he was 28 years old...bent over for Pat Kirwin and stipulated that the Browns lack talent.
Especially at wide reciever. Sure, Massequoi averaged nearly 20 yards per-catch as a rookie with two bad quarterbacks. I mean, he didn't even catch 50 passes! BUM!
Well--okay, he wouldn't lack talent if he played for another team, but as a Brown he's a bumb.
Pat admits that Josh Cribbs has talent, but ass umes that he will never become a wide reciever, so he doesn't count. GM Jeff has been scrupulously ignoring all those receptions he's piling up, and needs to suck up to Pat...
Anyway, all we got are those two guys-ergo no talent at wide reciever.
Tight end is almost as bad, since we only have Ben Watson and Evan Moore. Pitiful!
Hillis is a fluke. He's kind of a persistant fluke--but eventually he will prove that he lacks talent. So will Harrison, until he proves that he can carry the ball 40 times per game for 16 games. At least twice--since he's a Cleveland Brown, doncha know.
I mean, Watson went from being really good as a Patriot to not having talent as a Brown.
All the Browns have on the offensive line are Thomas, Steinbach, Mack, Lauvao, and guys named Joe. That's only one annual Pro-Bowler and two guys who might get that good in a couple years--out of five. No talent on the offensive line.
The lack of talent on defense is even worse. Aside from Rogers, Jackson, Rubin, Smith, Fujita, Gocong (who was good as an Eagle but lacks talent as a Brown), Ward, Brown, Haden, and Wright: aside from those ten guys, who have they got?
Schaefering, Roth, Trusnik, and Benard? Just because they got all those tackles-for-losses and sacks last season? Puh-leez!
I rest my case. This is how to obejctively analize stuff.
I'm weary of hearing goobers and clowns babbling mindless cliches. "No moral victory". Screw yourself. They had a Superbowl contender on the ropes for most of a game. They played well enough to win, without several of their best players.
They're close. They're improving. If you expected them to beat the Bengals or Ravens THIS season, you clown, get back on your medication. And quit throwing tantrums.
ONE season from now, they'll be ready to close the deal. Grow up.
And I TOLD you that "backup fullback" we got for Saint Brady was Brandon Jacobs/Jerome Bettis (except he can catch better). Is it sinking in yet?
I also said they should do more 22 with Cribbs in it. And they shouldn't worry so much about balance when they can overpower people.
Wait til Moore, Jackson, Rogers, Lauvao (stay tuned--he'll have some hiccups but he's got the goods!!!), and Harrison come back.
Wait--what am I saying? No talent there. Nevermind.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Past Performance Does Not Neccessarily Guarantee Future Results
1: Mangini and his system have only been here for one season.
2: The roster is almost entirely new, with a lot of young players.
3: Holmgren and Heckert just got here.
4: The quarterbacks are Delhomme and Wallace.
5: Despite being strafed by opposing quarterbacks, the defense ranked fifth in preseason, and Ryan implies that he did indeed withhold much of his playbook.
6: Delhomme has been awesome. Some of you clowns confidently predict that he will fall on his face as soon as it counts, and the defense won't get any better. This is how biased, irrational people cherry-pick to support whatever opinion they've impulsively decided they need to prove.
Adam Schein is an example. As usual, he's predicted three wins this season, and naturally has Tampa beating them.
Rich Gannon, a Superbowl MVP quarterback, has recently studied the Browns himself, and likes them.
Unlike Adam, he cites a number of reasons, which if you'd ever read this you already know. In response, Adam starts most of his sentences with "I just--". Whenever somebody starts their sentences that way, they're out of facts, and are simply being stubborn.
Gannon predicted that the Browns would beat the Bucs today. He cited a much better quarterback situation, a very good offensive line with a powerful and diverse running and short passing game, the improving defense, Rogers/Harrison/Cribbs/Watson (he really likes Watson--but what does a quarterback know?)/Moore (yes me mentioned Moore--seems to like huge sure-handed guys for some reason), and other stuff.
Shein's reply was "I just like talent. I like coaching. I like the Buccaneers".
Adam loses a lot of debates. He just plain doesn't like the Browns, and never has. He feels more than he thinks, and, like a number of you posters who send stuff in from Oblivia and Crete, is impervious to coaching, management, system, and personel-changes.
"All's I know is--" Listen to Gannon, another ex-QB in Jim Miller, former offensive lineman Ross Tucker, and Gil Brandt. They all like the Browns a lot. Either Miller or Tucker (maybe both) picked the Browns to overtake the Stoolers in the division. All of them told you why--specificly.
Speaking of Ross Tucker, he really likes the offensive line. He says the starting right side, whatever it is, will be ok--just doesn't like the depth. He recommended a particular free agent who could be a swing-tackle.
We do have Steinbach, who can play left tackle, but I believe Ross's point is that this would cause a lot more disruption than leaving him where he was, and simply replacing Thomas.
Hey I miss Ryan Tcuker, too--but not every team can have a Pro-Bowl calibre right tackle every year. A LOT of teams, including playoff teams, have to go with average or just above average guys at one or two offensive line spots. Get real about that, will you? That's part of being rational and thinking with your brain, too.
And quit making stuff up, like Robiskie butted heads with Mangini, so Mangini benched him in a Napoleonic snit. Nobody ever even hinted that that's what happened. And hell, I told you before he was drafted (and saw in games) that he had trouble separating from defenders because he's not explosive.
Massequoi has a second gear, and can shoot out of cuts, but Robiskie is like most of us other mere mortals (especially us caucasians), and has to use trickery and deciet. And reach. And position. And strength. And pretty good top end speed.
Speaking of the Stoolers, get real about them too. Their outside linebackers are awesome, and they've got Hood coming into their defensive line, and he'll kick butt. But the rest of the defense is aging. And do you think that an older player after an injury and re-injury of a knee comes back as good as he was? They peak at twenty eight or twenty nine.
So they don't have Big Ben for four games, and everybody ass umes that whoever the hell the new QB is will do just fine? Why, when their offensive line isn't that great?
They've got Gramps Jackson playing right tackle. He might (or might not) still be an okay pass-blocker, but he's a "wall-off", finesse run-blocker, and he's ancient, too.
They've got good stuff and bad stuff--just quit being superstitious about the Stoolers and ignoring the bad stuff. You think they'll just mysticly transcend their weaknesses as they have in the past under different coaches. That's irrational.
Go position-by-position and position-group-by position-group, and you'll see that the Browns are better overall. I envy them their ouside linebackers, safety (at least the two years ago version), and...I'm not sure I'd trade anybody else...I mean Ben is damn good, but what a butt-head!).
The Browns didn't get lucky with them last season. They dominated them from the opening bell. It wasn't a fluke. They took the Bungles, which swept the division, into overtime. And they did it with a rookie number one reciever and no quarterback.
Stop the inanity. Put away the astrology charts and be analytical for a change.
Browns 8-8. Stoolers 7-9.
2: The roster is almost entirely new, with a lot of young players.
3: Holmgren and Heckert just got here.
4: The quarterbacks are Delhomme and Wallace.
5: Despite being strafed by opposing quarterbacks, the defense ranked fifth in preseason, and Ryan implies that he did indeed withhold much of his playbook.
6: Delhomme has been awesome. Some of you clowns confidently predict that he will fall on his face as soon as it counts, and the defense won't get any better. This is how biased, irrational people cherry-pick to support whatever opinion they've impulsively decided they need to prove.
Adam Schein is an example. As usual, he's predicted three wins this season, and naturally has Tampa beating them.
Rich Gannon, a Superbowl MVP quarterback, has recently studied the Browns himself, and likes them.
Unlike Adam, he cites a number of reasons, which if you'd ever read this you already know. In response, Adam starts most of his sentences with "I just--". Whenever somebody starts their sentences that way, they're out of facts, and are simply being stubborn.
Gannon predicted that the Browns would beat the Bucs today. He cited a much better quarterback situation, a very good offensive line with a powerful and diverse running and short passing game, the improving defense, Rogers/Harrison/Cribbs/Watson (he really likes Watson--but what does a quarterback know?)/Moore (yes me mentioned Moore--seems to like huge sure-handed guys for some reason), and other stuff.
Shein's reply was "I just like talent. I like coaching. I like the Buccaneers".
Adam loses a lot of debates. He just plain doesn't like the Browns, and never has. He feels more than he thinks, and, like a number of you posters who send stuff in from Oblivia and Crete, is impervious to coaching, management, system, and personel-changes.
"All's I know is--" Listen to Gannon, another ex-QB in Jim Miller, former offensive lineman Ross Tucker, and Gil Brandt. They all like the Browns a lot. Either Miller or Tucker (maybe both) picked the Browns to overtake the Stoolers in the division. All of them told you why--specificly.
Speaking of Ross Tucker, he really likes the offensive line. He says the starting right side, whatever it is, will be ok--just doesn't like the depth. He recommended a particular free agent who could be a swing-tackle.
We do have Steinbach, who can play left tackle, but I believe Ross's point is that this would cause a lot more disruption than leaving him where he was, and simply replacing Thomas.
Hey I miss Ryan Tcuker, too--but not every team can have a Pro-Bowl calibre right tackle every year. A LOT of teams, including playoff teams, have to go with average or just above average guys at one or two offensive line spots. Get real about that, will you? That's part of being rational and thinking with your brain, too.
And quit making stuff up, like Robiskie butted heads with Mangini, so Mangini benched him in a Napoleonic snit. Nobody ever even hinted that that's what happened. And hell, I told you before he was drafted (and saw in games) that he had trouble separating from defenders because he's not explosive.
Massequoi has a second gear, and can shoot out of cuts, but Robiskie is like most of us other mere mortals (especially us caucasians), and has to use trickery and deciet. And reach. And position. And strength. And pretty good top end speed.
Speaking of the Stoolers, get real about them too. Their outside linebackers are awesome, and they've got Hood coming into their defensive line, and he'll kick butt. But the rest of the defense is aging. And do you think that an older player after an injury and re-injury of a knee comes back as good as he was? They peak at twenty eight or twenty nine.
So they don't have Big Ben for four games, and everybody ass umes that whoever the hell the new QB is will do just fine? Why, when their offensive line isn't that great?
They've got Gramps Jackson playing right tackle. He might (or might not) still be an okay pass-blocker, but he's a "wall-off", finesse run-blocker, and he's ancient, too.
They've got good stuff and bad stuff--just quit being superstitious about the Stoolers and ignoring the bad stuff. You think they'll just mysticly transcend their weaknesses as they have in the past under different coaches. That's irrational.
Go position-by-position and position-group-by position-group, and you'll see that the Browns are better overall. I envy them their ouside linebackers, safety (at least the two years ago version), and...I'm not sure I'd trade anybody else...I mean Ben is damn good, but what a butt-head!).
The Browns didn't get lucky with them last season. They dominated them from the opening bell. It wasn't a fluke. They took the Bungles, which swept the division, into overtime. And they did it with a rookie number one reciever and no quarterback.
Stop the inanity. Put away the astrology charts and be analytical for a change.
Browns 8-8. Stoolers 7-9.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Ransom Preseason Comments and CORRECTIONS
1: James Davis was not on the bubble. Hillis doubles as a fullback, and a run-oriented team using two-back formations keeps three running backs. For all the Hardesty hype, Davis is a very good player, and the Coaches know it.
2: Davis was not a "speedster", nor a "big back". Who said he was probably the fastest of the bunch? Faster than Harrison and Hardesty? Do some home-work, for cryin out loud! The only reason he slid in the draft was because he hadn't made any really splashy plays! He was a super-dependable chain-mover. He was almost as light as Harrison!
I said before last season that Davis is Earnest Byner. Is it sinking in yet?
3: I'm less surprised than most others by McCoy's performance vs. Chicago...but am still surprised. Yeah, he was working against third-stringers...WITH third-stringers (so stop repeating that cliche!) These guys were all fighting for their very lives. He settled down and demonstrated his pinoint accuracy.
4: Dink-and dunk? Only somewhat. He averaged over ten yards per completion (which is pretty good). Not all of it was YAC yards, but the substantial portion that were came partly from that accuracy as well.
A guy who doesn't have to slow down, dive, stop, or leap for the ball is much, much harder to nail before he can do more damage. This is what separated Joe Montana from everybody else, and it's what McCoy does best.
5: Benard went apeshit. I believe he is making a case to be a starter. I haven't seen/can't judge him in coverage, but he certainly can sift through traffic and track down ballcarriers. (The pass-rush part is a given).
The Browns need a pass-rush, first and foremost. I really like Scott Fujita, but if Benard can help more than he can...so be it. Fortunately, Mangini isn't Marty. Benard has a fair chance. I think.
6: The biggest single reason every enemy passer has OWNED this defense was the lack of pressure. NO secondary can cover for more than a few seconds. A running quarterback is less accurate than a stationary one. A quarterback not at his preassigned launch-point can't see as well, and has to improvise. A timing quarterback can't execute if he can't make it to his throw-count. A quarterback who takes his eyes off the secondary has a hard time finding the recievers again.
These quarterbacks have had all day.
Not that the young guys haven't misread things, been fooled, or simply screwed up. This, however, will improve as they get more reps.
Duh.
7: Great to see Mitchell make some catches. I don't believe he'd survive waivers, and I think he'll be an active player...learning from the bench, mostly.
8: McDonald has earned the right to stick around. Great depth there. He does seem to be the fourth-best pure cornerback. (Adams is a safety/cornerback hybrid. Each guy has weaknesses, but between these two, those weaknesses offset.)
9: Ventrone showed something. Was it enough?
10: Costanzo is a given for special teams play alone, but did show some real ability as a linebacker. He might move up the depth-chart there.
11: The offense McCoy ran was not specificly designed to protect him. It IS similar to what this offense will be with Delhomme, who is likewise a quick and accurate thrower.
It's an Infante-like ball-control offense with no big stars. A defense can't focus on one player. I was stunned to read that eighteen different players had caught passes as of the Chicago game, and that Delhomme has completed passes to ten different players in one game.
This is why I'm frustrated when Pat Kirwin asks a Browns caller "who's your playmaker?"
He means the one guy who commands double-coverage and still makes catches. Pat considers this manditory. He can back it up.
Okay, Pat: Is a wide reciever who caught 36 passes and averaged almost 20 YPC, with a crappy quarterback, and as a rookie, adequate? Who was the secondary target, Pat? Think defenses paid any attention to him? What does Massequoi have to do as a sophomore to qualify, Pat? 120 catches for a 25 yards per catch average? Does the bar go up for the Browns, Pat?
But I digress. How 'bout Harrison, the leading reciever? Can Evan Moore ever aspire to be adequate in your eyes? Or Ben Watson: Can he ever become a playmaker?
Ah, but none of these guys are Randy Moss or Jerry Rice, or even twice as good as everybody else. So to Pat, rather than four pretty good players, the Browns don't have anybody.
How can you stop an offense that targets every part of the field, Pat? I mean, in which it doesn't matter who lines up where, or who you cover? When a quarterback hits ten recievers in one game, and when throughout preseason a whole bunch of guys have several receptions each, and almost every single one of them averages over ten yards per catch?
Where's my playmaker? Have Delhomme throw to Massequoi more often, and there's one. But since he doesn't HAVE TO, I guess you'll never percieve any of these guys as a playmaker.
Pat's partner, Tim Ryan, said of Robiskie: "I don't see the explosion; the separation. He's just not a sudden player." (all true, by the way)..."he'll catch the ball in traffic and run slants on you all day, but---"
BUT? Tim doesn't get it: That's what he's here for! He's not here to be a deep threat!
The reason Tim spoke this way of Robiskie is because for him, as for Pat, Massequoi (and Harrison the reciever) don't even exist. But either of those two, or Josh Cribbs, can score from anywhere on the field.
That's not a playmaker? That's not sudden or explosive? Why IS the bar so much higher for a Cleveland Brown, that Pat Ryan thinks Robiskie was drafted in the second round to be the playmaker?
After this preseason, the defense has me nervous. I have faith in the young talent and in Ryan, however. I know it will be rocky early, but by mid-season I'll be we got a formidable and opportunistic defense to go with a deliberate, diverse, ball-control offense.
This team is already better than the team that split the last half of last season without a quarterback.
You stand corrected.
2: Davis was not a "speedster", nor a "big back". Who said he was probably the fastest of the bunch? Faster than Harrison and Hardesty? Do some home-work, for cryin out loud! The only reason he slid in the draft was because he hadn't made any really splashy plays! He was a super-dependable chain-mover. He was almost as light as Harrison!
I said before last season that Davis is Earnest Byner. Is it sinking in yet?
3: I'm less surprised than most others by McCoy's performance vs. Chicago...but am still surprised. Yeah, he was working against third-stringers...WITH third-stringers (so stop repeating that cliche!) These guys were all fighting for their very lives. He settled down and demonstrated his pinoint accuracy.
4: Dink-and dunk? Only somewhat. He averaged over ten yards per completion (which is pretty good). Not all of it was YAC yards, but the substantial portion that were came partly from that accuracy as well.
A guy who doesn't have to slow down, dive, stop, or leap for the ball is much, much harder to nail before he can do more damage. This is what separated Joe Montana from everybody else, and it's what McCoy does best.
5: Benard went apeshit. I believe he is making a case to be a starter. I haven't seen/can't judge him in coverage, but he certainly can sift through traffic and track down ballcarriers. (The pass-rush part is a given).
The Browns need a pass-rush, first and foremost. I really like Scott Fujita, but if Benard can help more than he can...so be it. Fortunately, Mangini isn't Marty. Benard has a fair chance. I think.
6: The biggest single reason every enemy passer has OWNED this defense was the lack of pressure. NO secondary can cover for more than a few seconds. A running quarterback is less accurate than a stationary one. A quarterback not at his preassigned launch-point can't see as well, and has to improvise. A timing quarterback can't execute if he can't make it to his throw-count. A quarterback who takes his eyes off the secondary has a hard time finding the recievers again.
These quarterbacks have had all day.
Not that the young guys haven't misread things, been fooled, or simply screwed up. This, however, will improve as they get more reps.
Duh.
7: Great to see Mitchell make some catches. I don't believe he'd survive waivers, and I think he'll be an active player...learning from the bench, mostly.
8: McDonald has earned the right to stick around. Great depth there. He does seem to be the fourth-best pure cornerback. (Adams is a safety/cornerback hybrid. Each guy has weaknesses, but between these two, those weaknesses offset.)
9: Ventrone showed something. Was it enough?
10: Costanzo is a given for special teams play alone, but did show some real ability as a linebacker. He might move up the depth-chart there.
11: The offense McCoy ran was not specificly designed to protect him. It IS similar to what this offense will be with Delhomme, who is likewise a quick and accurate thrower.
It's an Infante-like ball-control offense with no big stars. A defense can't focus on one player. I was stunned to read that eighteen different players had caught passes as of the Chicago game, and that Delhomme has completed passes to ten different players in one game.
This is why I'm frustrated when Pat Kirwin asks a Browns caller "who's your playmaker?"
He means the one guy who commands double-coverage and still makes catches. Pat considers this manditory. He can back it up.
Okay, Pat: Is a wide reciever who caught 36 passes and averaged almost 20 YPC, with a crappy quarterback, and as a rookie, adequate? Who was the secondary target, Pat? Think defenses paid any attention to him? What does Massequoi have to do as a sophomore to qualify, Pat? 120 catches for a 25 yards per catch average? Does the bar go up for the Browns, Pat?
But I digress. How 'bout Harrison, the leading reciever? Can Evan Moore ever aspire to be adequate in your eyes? Or Ben Watson: Can he ever become a playmaker?
Ah, but none of these guys are Randy Moss or Jerry Rice, or even twice as good as everybody else. So to Pat, rather than four pretty good players, the Browns don't have anybody.
How can you stop an offense that targets every part of the field, Pat? I mean, in which it doesn't matter who lines up where, or who you cover? When a quarterback hits ten recievers in one game, and when throughout preseason a whole bunch of guys have several receptions each, and almost every single one of them averages over ten yards per catch?
Where's my playmaker? Have Delhomme throw to Massequoi more often, and there's one. But since he doesn't HAVE TO, I guess you'll never percieve any of these guys as a playmaker.
Pat's partner, Tim Ryan, said of Robiskie: "I don't see the explosion; the separation. He's just not a sudden player." (all true, by the way)..."he'll catch the ball in traffic and run slants on you all day, but---"
BUT? Tim doesn't get it: That's what he's here for! He's not here to be a deep threat!
The reason Tim spoke this way of Robiskie is because for him, as for Pat, Massequoi (and Harrison the reciever) don't even exist. But either of those two, or Josh Cribbs, can score from anywhere on the field.
That's not a playmaker? That's not sudden or explosive? Why IS the bar so much higher for a Cleveland Brown, that Pat Ryan thinks Robiskie was drafted in the second round to be the playmaker?
After this preseason, the defense has me nervous. I have faith in the young talent and in Ryan, however. I know it will be rocky early, but by mid-season I'll be we got a formidable and opportunistic defense to go with a deliberate, diverse, ball-control offense.
This team is already better than the team that split the last half of last season without a quarterback.
You stand corrected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)