Superbowl

I'm not like most Browns fans in that I sometimes suspend my hatred of the Stoolers. I figure if I can't root for the Browns I'd like to see the AFC North win. Stoolers or Ratbird victories make the Browns look a little less crappy, and also place the highest challenge right here.


Many fans hearing this will call me a...what--a heretic, or something. See previous post.


Anyway, I do give the edge to the Packers by a hair. I only have a few reasons for this.


For one, Pouncey won't play, which is good news for BJ Raji. Next, the Stoolers tackles are just okay, and one is ancient. Clay Matthews loves that.

Couple this with Big Ben. When Big Ben plays the Browns, he is often in the grasp for three seconds between the tackles, on his way down to the ground (at a 45 degree angle), and sort of dribbles the ball to the nearest available bare spot. It's always called an incomplete pass, and never intentional grounding or in-the-grasp (sack).

That won't work in the Superbowl. Here the refs will have to call a legitimate game. So Big Ben will lose perhaps his biggest advantage.

I don't blame Ben for taking advantage of this obvious bias. I would too. But I fully expect him to try it in this game, and wonder why all of a sudden they're treating him like the rest of the quarterbacks in the NFL. Hopefully, he'll get flustered by it.

And then, unlike the Browns "tacklers", the Packers won't dribble off him. Matthews and co. won't let him fool around like that. He'll have to intentionally ground the ball before he's hit.

And, too, I like the West Coast and Rodgers (PS the quarterback has a "d" in his name. Out defensive lineman doesn't. Two different names. Get literate, please). Hampton and Kiesel are old geezers, and Rodgers gets rid of it quickly. It will be harder for Harrison and company to get at him, and it might be foolish to take them out of coverage to try it.

Oh--and "I play the way I was taught to play" Harrison: Mister why is everybody always picking on me loves to hit other guys in the helmet and try to break their necks or put them in comas. He is obviously a vicous, sadistic, and perhaps sociopathic player who simply can't resist inflicting the greatest possible lasting or permanent damage on his fellow football players.

Should be good for some penalties. And by the way, mike Tomlin is an apologist and an enabler who deserves to lose for that reason alone.

Taught to play that way? Navy Seals and terrorists aren't football players, and anyway Harrison never was one, so that's a lie.

Polumalu can only blow up so many plays per game, and might be hindered by his hammy. If he's leaping tall offensive lines at a single bound, he's not in coverage, and Rodgers can move (and scramble).

AND aside from Troy and one corner, the rest of the secondary isn't the greatest--especially in nickels and dimes--which the Pack will no doubt seek to keep them in all day long.

I will be watching this game to see how a properly executed West Coast offense works against this defense.

Thoughts on that:

1: The Browns don't have the Packers recievers, but I repeat that both MoMass and Robiskie are better suited to the West Coast than to conventional offenses. Robiskie is not explosive and will never gain much separation, but with an accurate quarterback has a height/size advantage on cornerbacks.
MoMass is more explosive and does get more separation, plus runs like a back with the ball.

The West Coast uses many shallow slants and crosses tailor made for these two players to make the most of their gifts.

2: As much as I love Cribbs the returner, I'd like to see him replaced by some of the quite capable other guys in some of those special teams roles so that he could remain healthy and fresh as a reciever, running back, and gimmick quarterback.
He has made big strides as a reciever. Last season, Hillis and Watson were prolific as hell, so he didn't get that many targets.
And yeah I said "running back". In the West Coast, this might be his best position, since he'd be catching it in space more than running it anyway. In the absence of a drafted or FA waterbug change-up for Hillis, that's one fo the ways I'd use Cribbs.
As a WR, his patterns still aren't as precise as they need to be, and he has trouble with jams. From the backfield, he's jam-proof and can even juke before he crosses the line to shake coverage. They have to cover him softer.

3: Both Moore and Watson will be excellent in the West Coast, and definitely, for sure, they will BOTH be on the field more often here.

Picture Moore and Watson with Robiske and MoMass, then either Hillis or Cribbs in the backfield. If all four of the down guys go out for a pass, you've almost got to keep at least five back in coverage, inc. one safety over the top. Both tight ends are unmatchable with an unsual size/speed combination, and will be open early and usually not far from the quarterback, and between the hashes.

MoMass can beat single coverage all day long. As a rookie, he was beating doubles consistantly in the last half of 2009, and with two bad quarterbacks. He's not a burner, but is pretty fast and dangerous. If the Browns can't land a real burner in the offseason, in this scenario MoMass can be a real threat.

I love Hillis in the West Coast. It's tailor-made for a guy with his skill-set. He'd last much longer in it, too, because he could avoid a lot of the punishment he took being a human battering-ram. He'd get the ball outside and in space more often, with a chance to see what's coming at him, rather than in a tight space with the whole defense focussed on his hole.

Ditto Cribbs, who I repeat I would phase partly out of special teams and make more a running back than in-line reciever. As a reciever he can make tough catches now, but as a West Coast running back, he can catch the ball in space, and do what he does every time he catches a punt or kickoff!

Think about that. On punts and kickoffs, the leg puts the ball in a certain place, and the entire coverage unit is collapsing towards him. As a running back, he'd often get the ball with defenders pulled all over the place and trying to reverse directions. As a returner, he only got the ball a few times per-game. Just imagine if he got it two or three times as often, and usually much closer to the enemy goal line.

Tell me where I'm wrong. Go ahead, tell me. We need playmakers? Well, we got one, anyway, if they'd just use him right!

No, the offense isn't by any means complete, but I regard a young right tackle as more important than a fast wide-out, and a running back (you know like the TWO they just got rid of dammit?) to offset/spell Hillis could be forestalled.

For that matter, just like most teams, almost every position could be upgraded. I never said anything was perfect. Thomas is as good as it gets, and I really like Watson, and Mack, and Hillis...and even Moore, who should finally get a real opportunity to make me look smart. And Cribbs, of course. And I have much confidence in a healthy, experienced McCoy in a Colt-freindly system with great coaching. But EVERY other position could be upgraded. I'd rather have Bradford than McCoy, for that matter (but don't tell Colt I said so, and in this system Colt might even out-do him).

Is that understood?

In conclusion, USE CRIBBS AT RUNNING BACK 33% of the time, use Moore WITH Watson, and this should be a highly-competitive offense.

I HAVE SPOKEN.