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.
No comments:
Post a Comment